Astrid Birgden, Just Forensic & Deakin University - Advancements in reducing reoffending: Including offender rights in rehabilitation

Advancements in reducing

reoffending: Including offender

rights in rehabilitation

Dr Astrid Birgden

Consultant Forensic Psychologist, Just Forensic &

Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor, Deakin University

Dec 2013

40 mins

Evidence

1. Does it work?

2. Is it the right thing to do?

Community Protection

Policies/Strategies

Ethics

Evidence Base

The Campbell Collaboration:

Applies rigorous and systematic reviews of

the effect of interventions, including in the

CJS: provide the “gold standard”.

Meta-Analyses:

- Combine the results of numerous studies

- Build theory and inform policy.

Effect size:

A common measure of the strength of the

relationship between two variables.

Sentencing Principles

Punish

Incapacitate/

Deter

Rehabilitate


Punish

Incapacitate/

Deter

Rehabilitate

Punish

Seriousness of the

offence receives a

response by the state

proportional

to the harm caused

(Ashworth, 2006)

• Sentenced to corrections as punishment,

not for punishment.

Prison as punishment:

Only temporarily suppresses the

undesired behaviour;

Teaches more undesirable behaviours;

Behaviour change is unlikely to occur if

the offender is treated with disrespect

and lack of dignity.

(Sanson et al, 1995)

Punish

Offender Rehabilitation

27 studies; 5 adequate studies (Villettaz,

Killias & Zoder, 2006):

In 11/13 (85%)- community sanctions

reduced re-offending.

In 14/27 (52%)- no difference.

In 2/27 (7%)- prison sanctions reduced re-

offending.

Short confinement is not worse than

community sanctions.

Few studies compare community vs

prison sanctions.

Campbell Collaboration:

Prison vs Community


Punish

Incapacitate/

Deter

Rehabilitate


Incapacitate/

Deter

Rehabilitate

Incapacitate

Offenders are incapable of

offending again for a set

period of time, for

community

protection and

crime prevention

(Ashworth, 2006)

Deterrence

Future levels of offending

being reduced by fear of the

consequences, instilled

in both the individual

offender and the general

community.

(Ashworth, 2006)

Deter


43 studies of 120,000 adults and juveniles

(Wilson, MacKenzie & Mitchell, 2008):

The effect of boot camp- physical

exercise/military drill & ceremony/strict

discipline- on reducing re-offending.

Overall, no impact on re-offending.

Boot camp is neither as bad as critics say

nor as good as advocates say.

But the ‘military’ component is ineffective.

Boot camps no worse than imprisonment.


Boot Camp


Meta-analysis (Taylor & Ariel underway at

2012):

To assess the effect of EM on recidivism

and according to offender types.

Renzema & Mayo-Wilson (2005) conducted

a systemic review: The available evidence

up to 2002 was too limited to draw

conclusions about the efficacy of EM.


Electronic Monitoring


Incapacitate/

Deter

Rehabilitate


Rehabilitate


Identifies causes for

offending and reduces re-

offending by changing

thoughts, feelings, and

behaviours (ie, cognitive-

behavioural therapy)

(Ashworth, 2006)


How many of you would

take aspirin to reduce the

likelihood of a heart

attack?


Effect Size

Comparative effects sizes for selected interventions

Intervention Target Effect size

Aspirin Risk of myocardial infarction 0.034

Chemotherapy Breast cancer 0.08 - 0.11

Bypass surgery Coronary heart disease 0.15

AZT HIV/AIDS 0.23

Psych therapy Mental health problems 0.32

Tx of offenders Recidivism: overall 0.10

Recidivism: appropriate service 0.29

James McGuire- UK


Meta-analysis of 58 studies in US/UK/Aust/

Canada (Lipsey, Landenberger, & Wilson, 2007):

Recidivism reduced by 25%

Recidivism reduced by 52% in more

effective programs:

-Higher offender risk level

-Good CBT implementation

-Include anger control and problem solving

-Exclude victim impact and behaviour

modification

No difference in different ‘brands’ of CBT

programs

Re-offending rates same whether treated in

prison or community

Only 6/58 (10%) studies were ‘real world’


Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy


Meta-analysis (Lösel & Schmucker, underway

at 2009):

The effectiveness of treatment and

management on sex offenders.

Schmucker & Lösel (2009)- published a

systematic review:

-Majority of studies showed +ve results

-Recidivism rates- treated offenders (11%) vs

untreated (18%) = 37% difference

-Findings for violent and general re-offending

the same

-+ve effects- CBT, behavioural approaches,

hormone medication, surgical castration


Sex Offender Treatment

Rigorous evaluations across several countries

over 35 yrs = 291 studies:

□ CBT- 25 studies = reduced re-offending (8.2%)

□ Practical programs- 30 studies = modest reduction:-

- employment training in the community (4.8%)

- basic adult education in prison (5.1%)

- correctional industries in prison (7.8%)

- vocational education in prison (12.6%).

□ Requiring further research = 17 studies:

- case management for drug-related offenders in

the community (zero)

- regular supervision vs no parole supervision

(zero)

- works release programs (5.6%)

(Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006)

Small effect sizes can be effective in practice;

even a 5% reduction in high risk offenders can be

cost-effective (Lösel, 1995)



Cost Effectiveness: Sentencing

Only 9 studies, and 6 provided valid cost-benefit

analysis:

□ Prison sex offender treatment x 2 = cost

beneficial

Diversion from prison into drug treatment x 1 =

cost beneficial

Imprisonment for high risk offenders x 1 = cost

beneficial, but not for lower risk or drug

offenders

Intensive supervision program x 1 = cost

beneficial but less supported by other research

Youth wilderness program x 1 = cost beneficial

but less supported by other research

(McDougall, Cohen, Swaray & Perry, 2008)


Cost Effectiveness: Sentencing

Only 9 studies, and 3 provided partially valid cost-

benefit analysis:

□ Effectiveness of prison vs probation

Released on parole vs full term

House arrest with electronic monitoring

(McDougall et al, 2008)


What is offender

rehabilitation?

COMMUNITY PROTECTION


RISK-NEED-RESPONSIVITY

Justice Principles

= Manage Risk

Theory 1: Risk-Need-Responsivity

The work of Andrews, Bonta and

Gendreau (Canada)

Psychology of Criminal Conduct

Offenders at higher risk of re-

offending require more intensive

treatment.

Low risk offenders do not

require treatment.

Emphasises risk management

= empirical approach

Risk

(Who)

Dynamic Risk Factors Non-Criminogenic Needs

The BIG 4:

1. Antisocial attitudes

2. Antisocial peers

3. Antisocial behaviour

4. Antisocial personality

5. Family/marital

problems

6. School/work problems

7. Leisure problems

8. Substance abuse

The CENTRAL 8

• Self esteem

• Vague feelings of

emotional discomfort

(anxiety, alienated)

• Major mental illness

• History of

victimisation

• Lack of ambition

• Fear of official

punishment

• Lack of physical

activity (boot camp)

Andrews & Bonta (2010)

Evidence

1. It works!

2. But is it the right thing to

do?

Risk-Need-Responsivity

Ethics

RNR misses the organisational

context, the therapeutic alliance and

offender autonomy

If you think I am being too harsh….

“Birgden (2004) opened Andrews’ eyes to

our inattention to respect for personal

autonomy as a basic value underlying our

psychology of criminal conduct and the

RNR approach. That will be corrected in

the 5th edition of Andrews and Bonta

[and] making human rights as part of a

model of offender rehabilitation is a very

attractive idea”.

(Andrews & Dowden, 2009, p. 119)



Good Lives Model

Therapeutic Principles

= Meet Needs

RNR

Justice Principles

= Manage Risk

Theory 2: Good Lives Model

The work of Ward & Stewart (NZ/Aust)

Psychological theory = emphasises

human need and well-being

Supplements RNR (not just about risk

management or relapse prevention)

Ways of living that are beneficial and

fulfilling to the individual- to meet

physical, social and psychological

needs

Emphasises increased well-

being + capabilities =

humanistic approach

Good Lives Model cont

A theory that explains why a person may

offend.

Concerned with treatment readiness and

motivation- if you just manage risk, you

don’t engage the person to change.

The primary objective is to develop a pro-

social life (managing risk is secondary).

A “good life” is defined by the offender.

Offenders are fellow human travellers-

they are no different from non-offenders,

they are not “the other” (whatever moral

entrepreneurs may say).

Good Lives Model • Individuals offend to meet basic human

needs.

• So, ask: What needs is the person

meeting through offending?

• Then, provide them with the skills and

social supports to meet human needs in

socially acceptable and personally

meaningful ways.

• A strength-based approach:

Not “avoid kids when shopping” but “talk

to adults when shopping”.

Ward & Stewart (2003)

Healthy functioning Being safe

Family & social supports Meaningful work & education Leisure activities

Choices

Intimate r’ships

Competence &

mastery

Ethics

1. It is the right thing to do!

2. But does it work?

Good Lives Model

Evidence



GLM


Meet Need

RNR

Justice Principles

Manage Risk

THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE

Justice Principles + Therapeutic Principles

Manage Risk + Meet Need

Theory 3: Therapeutic Jurisprudence

The work of Wexler & Winick (US)

Legal theory = concern for

psychological well-being of

individuals affected by the law

Uses social science knowledge to

determine ways in which the law can

enhance psychological well-being

Focus on the law, legal procedures

and (psycho)legal roles

Emphasises increased well-being

= humanstic approach

TJ

The

Law

Legal

Procedures

Legal

Roles

Negative

Effect

✗ ✗ ✗

Neutral

Effect

✔ ✔

✔

Positive

Effect

✪ ✪ ✪

7 Principles (TJ + GLM)

Offender rehabilitation:

1. Is impacted by the law.

2. Should meet human needs.

3. Should support autonomous decision-

making in offenders.

4. Needs to be individualised.

5. Is a multi-disciplinary and multi-agency

endeavour.

6. Is normative- IT IS NOT VALUE-FREE!

7. Requires an offender-community

balance. Birgden (2002)


IS NOT….

Offender

Rights

Community

Protection

vs


IS ….

Offender

Rights

Community

Rights

+

Offender as….

Rights-Violator and

Rights-Holder

What are “offender rights”?

(Ward & Birgden, 2007)

1. Legal Right

Prescribed by particular laws (ie,

domestic & international laws)

3. Moral Right

Based on a moral theory or principle…..

2. Social Right

Guaranteed by a social institution

(eg, a prison)

v

Well-Being Autonomy

OBJECTS

Personal

Freedom

Social

Recognition

Material

Subsistence

Personal

Security

Equality

POLICIES

Ward & Birgden (2007)

Offender as Rights-Violator

The State is to provide offenders with

the same goods (to meet human

needs) necessary for a life of dignity

as it provides to non-offenders.

That is…

Only temporarily curtail rights if

required for safe/secure/humane

service delivery.

Ward & Birgden (2007)

Offender as Rights-Holder

Moral entrepreneurs assume that offenders

forfeit human rights--outside of the

protective zone of human rights policies.

But…

1. The State is obliged to ensure rights.

2. The rights of non-offenders should not

outweigh the rights of offenders (eg,

access to treatment should be community

standard)

3. Community rights should not outweigh

offender rights.

ENHANCED COMMUNITY PROTECTION


Human Rights = Values Stance

GLM

Offender Rights


Rights Holder

RNR

Community Rights

Justice Principles

Rights Violator

TJ

Community Rights + Offender Rights

Justice Principles + Therapeutic Principles

Rights Violator + Rights Holder

Compulsory Drug Treatment

Correctional Centre Act (2004)

4 Objectives

1. Provide a comprehensive program of

compulsory treatment & rehabilitation

under judicial supervision.

2. Treat drug dependency, eliminate

drug use while in the program, and

reduce likelihood of relapse on release.

3. Prevent and reduce crime in relation to

drug dependency.

4. Promote reintegration into the

community.

Why Different?

Unique Legislation

Only Act of its kind in Australia (if not

internationally)

Model of Treatment

Drug use + offending behaviour

Fishbowl

Interagency partnership and reports

to Ministers x 3 (sometimes 4)

CDTCC Participants

(N=106 @ 2010)

Average age 29 years.

Heroin (71%), amphetamines (13%), “ice”/ benzodiazepines/cannabis/cocaine/alcohol

(2-5%) = polydrug use.

IV (83%), smoking (12%), oral (5%).

10% additional psychiatric diagnosis.

81% attempted drug treatment previously.

16% previous custodial sentence.

24% apprehended domestic violence

orders.

Aboriginal participants 14/52 = 27%

(generally 15-30%).

NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics

& Research (BOCSAR)

(Dekker, O’Brien & Smith, 2010)

Independent evaluation of:

1. Participant health and social functioning.

2. Participant drug use.

3. Participant perceptions of the CDTCC.

N of interviews

Baseline interview- 95

End Stage 1 interview only- 74

End Stages 1 + 2 interviews- 38

End Stages 1 + 2 + 3 interviews- 13

Final Report to NSW Parliament in 2010.

We obtained 4 more years of funding (to

2014)

BOCSAR EVALUATION cont

Majority were "sure" they wanted to

attend the Program and that the

Program would be helpful.

96% understood what was expected

of them.

100% agreed that being drug-free was

an important aspect of the Program.

Only 4% in Stage 1 and 0% in Stage 2

felt that they would prefer

mainstream gaol.

BOCSAR EVALUATION cont

By the end of Stage 2 (N = 38):

100% liked getting help for drug

problem + being drug-free + access

to training & education.

95% liked being abstinent.

• 97% liked being in a drug-free gaol.

By end of Stage 3 (N =13):

100% said Program had changed

their life- drug-free + improved

problem-solving skills + self-

awareness and decision-making +

sorting out finances, housing and

supports.

BOCSAR EVALUATION

Significant improvement in physical and

mental well-being

Initial emotional reaction to Order

reduced significantly

Treatment readiness increased

Participant perceptions improved

Lowered perceived coercion scores

Higher therapeutic alliance- with all

therapy staff and some custodial staff

84% considered that they had

volunteered to enter a compulsory

program!

Drug Test Results

At Oct 2009

15,000 tests = < 2% illicit use

In comparison to…

NSW Corrective Services = 6%

SA Corrective Services (2012-13) = 20%

(Media Report, 29/9/13)

At May 2013

40,200 tests = < 2% illicit use

The Helping Hand

Evidence-Based Ethical

1. Natural Justice

2. Rewards and Sanctions

3. Making Choices

4. Motivational Interactions

Engagement Strategies


REDUCED

RE-OFFENDING

Community Safety

OFFENDER

REHABILITATION

REDUCED

REOFFENDING


OFFENDER

REHABILITATION

REDUCED

REOFFENDING

BEHAVIOU

R

CHANGE


OFFENDER

REHABILITATION

REDUCED

REOFFENDING

BEHAVIOU

R

CHANGE

ENGAGE

OFFENDERS


OFFENDER

REHABILTATION

REDUCED

REOFFENDING

BEHAVIOU

R

CHANGE

1. EVIDENCE-

BASED

2. ETHICAL

ENGAGE

OFFENDERS


OFFENDER

REHABILITATION

HUMAN RIGHTS

APPROACH

REDUCED

REOFFENDING

BEHAVIOU

R

CHANGE

1. EVIDENCE-

BASED

2. ETHICAL

ENGAGE

OFFENDERS

On balance

Offenders need to be treated as human

beings who are legitimately part of the

moral community, emphasising community

inclusion through support rather than social

exclusion through incapacitation.

Birgden & Cucolo (2010)

► Or as “Neil” on 7-up/56-up said:

“I’m not standing up for legal rights, but the

right to be human”.

The best argument for observing human rights

standards is not merely that they are required by

international or domestic law but that they actually

work better than any known alternative- for

offenders, for correctional staff, and for society at

large. Compliance with human rights obligations

increases, though it does not guarantee, the odds of

releasing a more responsible citizen. In essence, a

prison environment respectful of human rights is

conducive to positive change, whereas an

environment of abuse, disrespect, and discrimination

has the opposite effect: Treating prisoners with

humanity actually enhances public safety. Moreover,

through respecting the human rights of prisoners,

society conveys a strong message that everyone,

regardless of their circumstance, race, social status,

gender, religion, and so on, is to be treated with

inherent respect and dignity (Zinger, 2006, p. 127)

[email protected]

Documents

Astrid Birgden, Just Forensic & Deakin University - Advancements in reducing reoffending: Including offender rights in rehabilitation