There's always been a bit of a mystery as to exactly what 'works' in relation to encouraging offenders to change their behaviour and many experienced probation staff were sceptical of 'one size fits all' approaches introduced some years ago and that had to be delivered in extremely proscribed fashion. I see Danny Shaw at the BBC reported yesterday on a recent report from Transform Justice:-
More than 118,000 offenders have taken part in rehabilitation programmes that have yet to be fully tested to see if they work, BBC News has learned. Courses for sex offenders and domestic abusers are among those which haven't been subject to an "outcome evaluation".
The charity Transform Justice, which compiled the data, said it meant they "have no idea" if the programmes have a positive or negative impact. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said although it aimed to conduct evaluations to an "academic standard" it could take years to develop a "robust data sample".
According to MoJ figures supplied to Transform Justice, 25 offender behaviour programmes currently run by HM Prison and Probation Service have not had an outcome evaluation. The evaluation consists of a research study which investigates the impact of an intervention - whether it worked and, if it did, how well it worked.
Between 2010 and 2018, 16,434 prisoners in England and Wales began non-evaluated courses and 101,662 offenders serving community sentences started such programmes between 2009/10 and 2016/17. In custody, the non-evaluated programme most commonly used was RESOLVE, a cognitive-behavioural intervention that aims to reduce violence, which was started by 7,444 inmates.
The two community-based schemes with most participants were Building Better Relationships, for male domestic violence perpetrators (15,090), and the Thinking Skills Programme, which helps offenders set goals and make plans without committing crimes (42,215). In addition, more than 20,000 sex offenders - in jail or on community orders - began courses which hadn't been fully evaluated.
Peter Neyroud, a former chief constable and an independent member of the MoJ's Data, Evidence and Science Board, said he was "concerned" about the findings and wanted them to be addressed. "You would have expected that every significant programme that the Ministry of Justice is funding and recommending out for delivery would have a clear basis in evidence, and would be tracked to make sure that it's actually matching the outcomes you'd expect - and I can't see from the evidence I've seen here that this is happening," he told BBC News.
In March 2017, the MoJ scrapped its main sex offender treatment scheme (SOTP) after research found that prisoners completing the programme were slightly more likely to offend than a control group.
Penelope Gibbs, a former magistrate who set up Transform Justice, said the "scandal" of SOTP - which had initially been devised in 1992 - must not be allowed to happen again. "There could be more disasters like the Sex Offender Treatment Programme but we just don't know," she said.
A number of courses, run by the Prison and Probation Service or outside agencies, have been evaluated but the MoJ accepted that for some programmes, with only a small number of participants, it could take five years to find out if they've had any impact. A spokesman said: "The effectiveness of these types of programmes, many of which are used successfully around the world, is constantly assessed on the ground and subject to rigorous academic-standard evaluation when there is sufficient data."
The department added that offending behaviour schemes were approved by a group of "independent, international experts" - the Correctional Services Accreditation and Advice Panel.
But Mr Neyroud, who lectures in criminology at the University of Cambridge, questioned whether the accreditation panel had sufficient information on which to base its decisions. "If as it seems the word 'accreditation' doesn't take in that this programme has got a clear evidence base and secondly that we've clearly tracked the outcomes and it's meeting those outcomes, it's good value and the public are being kept safe with it... then it simply isn't good enough," he said.
--oo00oo--
Rehabilitation programmes – do we know whether they work?
Anything which helps those who commit crimes change their behaviour has to be a good thing. For many years the rehabilitative efforts of prison and probation have been focused on behaviour changing courses or interventions. Evidence is amassed and analysed as to how one or the other programme seems to be successful in reducing reoffending. Programmes provide an easy way of “measuring” whether those who have committed crime are on the path to turning their lives around and of monitoring the performance of organisations (such as CRCs) tasked with fostering rehabilitation.
Last year Transform Justice published a report on domestic abuse and how we could reduce it. Perpetrator programmes are part of the answer but its not clear they all work equally well. We asked for the evidence that the programmes delivered in prisons and for those on probation worked and were surprised when none was forthcoming. No outcome evaluations had been done on the programmes running now (the main one has been running for five years) – the government is scoping how they might evaluate them. All the main HMPPS programmes are accredited – but all this means is that a panel of experts has said that the programme’s design is sound.
The news that the government does not know whether its own domestic abuse programmes work hardly caused a ripple. But I was disturbed, particularly since excellent out of court programmes are frowned on. I put in a freedom of information request to find out what other prisons and probation programmes were not (outcome) evaluated and the results were even more disturbing – most programmes that are running, and many that no longer run have no outcome evaluations. This means we have no idea whether they work or not. We calculate that 118,096 people have started prison and probation programmes which do not have impact evaluations.
It is really surprising that the government has not sought to find out whether these programmes work. A few years ago they had a bad experience. In 2017 they found out that the programme they had been running since 1992 to help prisoners reduce their likelihood of committing sex offences in fact had the opposite effect – doing the programme increased the chance that someone would offend again on leaving prison. The sex offender treatment programme had in fact been evaluated in 2003 – then it appeared to have no effect in reducing sex offending but did reduce “the overall combined sexual and violent reconviction rate”. But the problem with programmes is that they can work in different ways in different circumstances. Trainers may deviate from the original programme, or it maybe delivered to a different cohort. Anyway, the Sex Offender Treatment Programme was running another decade before they decided to run a new evaluation. When this showed such negative results, they quietly axed the programme and the fiasco was only revealed through Frances Crook of the Howard League and journalist David Rose.
The problem with not evaluating programmes is not just that we don’t know if they work (or worse – if they are making people more likely to re-offend) but that we are forcing people to do these programmes and punishing non-completion. Those in prison applying for parole have to complete certain programmes to be eligible for release and there are many prisoners, particularly those on IPP sentences, who have spent extra years in prison mainly because they have not completed programmes. People are ordered to go on programmes as part of community sentences. If they don’t complete them, they can be prosecuted for breach and punished with imprisonment. It seems grossly unfair that we should deprive people of their liberty for failing to do courses which may or may not work.
Plenty of drugs and interventions used by the health service have a shaky evidence base. If they go wrong they can do people great harm. The same is true of programmes prisoners are pressurised to go on. Those who have committed crimes want support to turn over a new leaf. But we let them down if we make them do courses and never seek to find out whether they help or hinder rehabilitation.
NB In our spreadsheets etc we are referring specifically to outcome/impact evaluations not process evaluations – the latter are not designed to assess whether programmes have an impact.
They'll have great fun when they discover RAR interventions then...
ReplyDeleteThis is not rocket science MOJ?
ReplyDeleteTrying to glean ideas for the next generation?
You have wasted enough money and lost quality staff since TR so sort your own affairs out on 'What Works'.
I think most offenders see these rehabilitation programs as just part of the process. Something to complete, to get through to satisfy the authorities.
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded of having to do French, German or Spanish at secondary school for years, but I really don't know anyone who could speak any of them once leaving school.
I like the medical analogy above, and feel that offender programs are often seen as some sort of generic antibiotic for offending, but I don't view offending as a generic diagnosis, it's far more complex.
If offending is rooted in alcohol or drug misuse for example, then by the time an offender is put before the courts and sent on a program then I'd possit that they already know a considerable amount about both subjects.
Rehabilitation takes coaxing out, support and nurturing. It's not something that can be imposed or enforced, and it's certainly something that can't be learned in the classroom.
' Getafix
I spent 3.5 years inside for fraud and was told at each and every prison I was sent to that I was not eligible for any of the OB programmes so I didn't complete a single one inside. I have not reoffended since leaving custody over 4 years ago. Plenty of people I knew inside did all sorts of OB programmes and a lot of them have reoffended. Others have not (about 60/40 have/have not). Other people I knew inside who, like me didn't take any OB courses for one reason or another, have also not reoffended. This is, obviously, anecdotal but suggests that OB courses generally don't work from what I have personally seen. Prisons would probably do much better by teaching people to take responsibility for their actions and choices not through tick box exercises but by real world stuff. Yet prison doesn't allow you any choice over who you live with, what you do whilst inside etc. In fact the only choices you get to make is about your canteen purchases and which of the 5 meal choices you choose. Infantilising people and taking away all personal choice and responsibility is hardly helping people to take responsibility for their past, current or future choices. Then they are thrown back out on the street and are expected to be model citizens despite not being given any opportunity to learn from their mistakes, learn how to turn their lives around etc. Probation doesn't help in any way as I, and many others, found it actually counter productive. No practical help, lots of silly restrictions and lots of prejudice. It's no wonder the reoffending rate is so high because the entire system mitigates against people learning from their mistakes. Tick box OB programmes to meet targets are simply not the answer.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.russellwebster.com/blog/
ReplyDeleteI was once told not so long ago in a team meeting by a manager ( I work for Interserve CGM ) that my time spent with service users was pointless and that program intervention was what was required and more important than what I was arguing ( I'm old school and still see value in getting to know people and offering people my time and assistance with whatever issues they present with ) - this really could throw a spanner in the TR2 plans , however silly me it will still be the same companies running the " programs " and " unpaid work " that are currently doing so and getting it so very wrong , why would the power's that be start listening to reason now !!!
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that there is quite a lot of evidence that it is the professional relationship with the Probation Officer that works. I read a ten year follow up study that reversed findings of offenders just finishing probation.
ReplyDeleteAccredited programmes are hit and miss. They were more popular in past decades but were never meant to be standalone solutions. We propose and refer but most of us in probation know the ‘one size fits all’ approach doesn’t really work. The evidence proves they’re pointless if the offender then returns to an unsanitary cell in a decaying and crime-ridden prison, or is released from the prison or leaves the probation office to ongoing homelessness, unemployment, bad relationships and addictions.
ReplyDeleteNewer PO’s will demand offenders appreciate how much programmes ensure their ‘risk management’. Older PO’s use them because there’s nothing else to offer. In my experience programmes are badly resourced and take too long to get started in prison or community. The eligibility criteria’s are crude and rigid, except for when referrals are too low or too high. They’re delivered by ‘facilitators’, mostly poorly-trained PSO’s and PO’s that long forgot how to do the day job. All reading from PowerPoint slides and manuals with outdated concepts. And is anyone really going to learn much from sitting in a room for an hour a week for 12 weeks with a bunch of like-minded offenders who also don’t want to be there?
A lot of the problems now faced are as a result of importing programmes (some of which were originally inspired by 1980s UK programmes and innovative practice) and importing them into the UK system without the associated support networks both within and external to probation. I remember talking to colleagues who were appalled at the way programmes were going to be evaluated in house in contrast to the way they were actually done in Canada where there were much better links with research centres in universities and a bit more diversity in terms of programmes and a greater willingness to change these too, You notice that I did not say group programmes because again in Canada 1:1 programmes and groups were given equal weighting. One size fit all changed in the light of experience and carefully evaluated results and study. The close relationship with research centres, systematic evaluation, and a steady throughput of researchers looking at all aspects of the work including probation students kept everything live and dynamic. It all could have been so different in England and Wales but as usual the government was not keen to have a bunch of academics sticking their nose in and the last thing, they wanted was social work and criminology students cluttering up the corridors and questioning everything hence the attack on our training that has not let up. Put training back into the universities and get more linkage between the universities and probation to make sure things are kept on track and tell the MoJ to butt out of probation.
ReplyDeleteSnake oil, get yer luvverly snake oil here, snake oil, only a million parnds a pop, garanteed to make everyone stop doing what they shouldn't. Cures burgling, kiddy-fiddling, drink-driving, removes risk & everyfing. Snake oil...
ReplyDelete