Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the degree to which a US prison-based sexual offender treatment program adheres to the best practice responsivity principle and to shed light on why prison-based programs tend to have worse recidivism outcomes than community programs. Results will facilitate program development efforts as they transition from programming developed prior to the risk-needs-responsivity knowledge about what works in treatment.

A mix of qualitative and quantitative methods assessed treatment methods, therapeutic climate, group therapy environment, therapist style, and staff and participants’ perceptions.

Overall, the analyses revealed insufficient adherence to the responsivity principle. The program used methods known to be effective with sexual offenders, but with deficient implementation. In group therapy sessions, therapeutic style deficiencies were demonstrated for stimulating growth, nurturance, and direction and control. Treatment program advancement was associated with group environment declines in cohesion, leader support, expressiveness, independence, and task orientation.

Results suggest that improved treatment response can be achieved by modifying methods and style to foster participant internal control, eliminate unnecessary external control and fear-based compliance, maximize participant autonomy; implement strengths-based approaches and fewer deficit-based interventions; monitor and minimize participant shame, and create a transparent and consistent program milieu, with clear communication, individualization, and adequate resources. Study limitations include a lack of recidivism outcomes; that it is a single prison sample, excludes female and juvenile offenders, and lacks a community-based control group. Nonetheless, despite inherent responsivity vulnerabilities compared to community-based programs, this study indicates several ways that program developers can enhance adherence to the responsivity principle in institutional-based programs.

This study aims to investigate the perspectives and experiences of treatment facilitators regarding the effectiveness of treatment they delivered for high-risk offenders with complex needs. Within this study, the term complex needs refers to an individual who is managing several issues, such as physical illness, mental health issues and addiction disorders.

There was a total of 18 semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted with treatment facilitators from Australia and the UK. This study presents two key themes that emerged from the thematic analysis: “the importance of responsivity and active/creative activities in practice” and “the practitioner’s core concerns: issues with high-risk offenders treatment accessibility”.

The findings revealed that treatment facilitators considered treatment responsivity as core to treatment for high-risk offenders with complex needs and that active/creative activities were beneficial in achieving this. Additionally, treatment facilitators expressed concerns around the inaccessibility of treatment, including the barriers of talk therapy and the inability for offenders to receive the level of support necessary. Considering these findings, this study offers a discussion on the potential value of music therapy as a component of treatment for such offending populations.

The empirical data yielded from the interviewed treatment facilitators highlight that music therapy can play a role in supporting the beneficial components of treatment programs. Further implications centre on addressing the limitations of treatment that were identified through the interviews.

This study focusses on exploring the role of music therapy with high-risk offenders and who have complex needs when engaging in treatment programs. This paper recognises that the application and use of music therapy with this cohort has been neglected in the academic literature and research until recently.

In this chapter, we first describe the all governing principles of treatment for sexual offenders that maximise effectiveness. These are derived from Andrews and Bonta's (2006) summary of a variety of meta-analyses of outcome studies. From this source and others, we then claim that there are three elements essential to effective treatment: (1) targeting criminogenic features; (2) employing empirically sound procedures to modify these targets; and (3) delivering treatment in an effective psychotherapeutic way. Next we describe our treatment approach that emphasises these crucial elements within a strength-based programme that is motivational and provides Ward's (2002) Good Lives Model as the framework. We then challenge the broadly accepted idea that the Random Controlled Trial (RCT) is the only basis upon which inferences about treatment effectiveness can be derived. We point to methodological, practical and ethical problems associated with implementing an RCT study and offer at least two alternatives: the so-called ‘incidental design’ which compares the outcome of the treated group with a matched (but not randomly assigned) group from the same or similar setting to the treated group; and a strategy where the recidivism rate of treated group is compared with what would be expected on the basis of risk assessments of each of the treated subjects.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the contribution of modern correctional service in health promotion exemplified by the case study of Norwegian health promotion policies in prison settings.

This paper applies a two-fold methodology. First a narrative systematic literature review based on the Norwegian policy documents relevant for correctional settings is conducted. This is followed by a general review of the literature on the principles of humane service delivery in offender rehabilitation.

Alongside the contribution of the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model in corrections and prevention of reoffending, the findings demonstrate an evident involvement of Norway in health promotion through authentic health promoting actions applied in prison settings. The actions are anchored in health policy's overarching goals of equity and “health in all public policy” aiming to reduce social inequalities in population health.

In order to achieve a potential success of promoting health in correctional settings, policy makers have much to gain from endorsing a dialogue that respects the unique contributions of correctional research and health promotion. Focussing on inter-agency partnership and interdisciplinary collaboration between humane services may result in promising outcomes for individual, community and public health gain. The organizational factors and community involvement may be a significant aspect in prisoner rehabilitation, reentry and reintegration.

Implementing treatment programmes with integrity requires a clear statement of what is to be done in treatment, and treatment manuals do this to a greater or lesser degree. In correctional work, many treatment programmes are formally accredited, yet changes may need to be made after accreditation. Updating accredited programmes is important, but there is little formal guidance on post‐accreditation revision. This paper aims to report on practitioner feedback on one accredited programme – Control of Violence for Angry Impulsive Drinkers (COVAID) – with the aim of illustrating how practitioner feedback might be interpreted and used in revising treatment programmes.

The authors surveyed 20 treatment managers in prison and probation services, of whom 11 (55 per cent) responded. Responses were analysed thematically.

Respondents indicated that COVAID met a need for offenders, met the responsivity principle, and was well supported by documentation and post‐training support audit. Respondents offered suggestions for improvement. Some changes to the manual were clearly required; however, many of the suggestions need to be addressed in training. While initial training can be amended for future use, developmental support is another means of maintaining treatment integrity.

The number of treatment managers approached was small and responses were obtained from only 55 per cent of those contacted. Therefore, the views of respondents may not be representative of all treatment managers.

This report addresses the issue of programme re‐accreditation and the basis for revising treatments and treatment manuals.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the ways in which cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) informed reciprocal-role procedures could better inform relapse prevention planning for offenders in treatment programmes.

The paper will explore the literature in relation to the efficacy of traditional victim empathy modules within accredited interventions as an intervention to reduce recidivism. Specifically, the paper will argue that current methods of victim empathy can pose a risk of increasing risk factors associated with recidivism and may be ineffective at reducing recidivism for certain clients.

Offender treatment using victim empathy could be more effectively utilised from a CAT informed perspective. The paper will introduce “No more Victims” which is a newly designed module using a CAT informed relapse prevention approach to assist offenders to consider the reciprocal roles which take them closer to offending and how to exit these.

This paper argues that standard victim empathy modules may be difficult to access for some offenders and the validity of this approach in reducing recidivism is questionable. However, considering the role of the victim within offending behaviour interventions can be of value and this can be particularly helpful in terms of risk management and risk reduction. CAT informed approaches such as the “No more Victims” module provide a method of exploring victim issues in a way that is responsive to the needs of the offender and the module can be used as an adjunct to cognitive behavioural therapy interventions. This approach can also enhance victim safety planning and better inform risk management plans for the offender and those supervising them. It is suggested that this approach should be more widely used in other forensic interventions to enable clients to have valuable insight into the role they assume when offending and how the risk of this being re-enacted in the future can be revised.

The paper will describe how consideration of reciprocal roles between the offender and victim could better inform relapse prevention in offender treatment programmes. An example of a session from the “No more Victims” module is provided.

This paper is an extension of the previous study published by Chan and Boer (2016). It seeks to explore deeper into the subject matter, to better aid ex-offenders’ reintegration effort back into society. The purpose of this paper is to expand the sample size of participants from 12 to 25, and to further ascertain any emerging factors (also known as predictors) that influence the reintegration process of ex-offenders in the hope of further reducing recidivism rate.

The study adopted a qualitative research framework where attention was devoted to understanding the experiences of 25 formerly incarcerated males − 12 participants were from the initial study, and now extended with another 13 participants to deepen the scope of the study. All participants who took part in the study had been out of prison for at least five years and had been incarcerated in the prison of Singapore more than once but are no longer on parole.

This study indicated three other new factors that emerged with the additional 13 participants, along with those seven different factors from the previous study that influenced the success of reintegration. These Ten Reintegration Assessment Predictors are critical as they further increase the probability of success of ex offender reintegration to society upon release. The combination of these ten predictors reported are essential for the reintegration process, and when put together, they formed the reintegration model.

A limitation to this research was that only two halfway houses took part in the process. Both of which are faith-based halfway houses. The previous study had 12 participants who took part in the research. Despite of attempts to enlarge the number of participants in the study, only an additional 13 new participants volunteered to take part.

From the themes that emerged from the previous study, critical factors for reintegration of offenders were ascertained. With the addition of three factors identified, it would further strengthen the factors needed to increase the success of reintegration of offenders. Resources could be channelled appropriately to strengthen the factors identified that are critical for the work of reintegrating offenders through their transition from incare to aftercare. Eventually, this is done to decrease the rate of recidivism and reoffending.

Decreasing the rate of recidivism and reoffending is always in the interest of every government. However, it is often not an easy task since most incarcerated persons will encounter numerous challenges after their release as they seek to reintegrate into the community. Under tremendous stress and pressure when facing the challenges, the cycle of reoffending perpetuates which eventually affects the rate of recidivism. This would adversely impact both individuals and the community they are in.

In Singapore, various initiatives to introduce new programmes and alternative sentencing options were initiated by the government to lower the rate of recidivism. Following from the previous study of 12 individuals who had successfully reintegrated back into the community, seven factors were identified to influence reintegration. With the addition of 13 participants to the research, three other factors further emerged and the study now concluded with ten factors deemed critical to strengthen the reintegration of offenders. From the study, a reintegration model for offenders was formulated.

In the prison system there are high percentages of mentally disordered offenders, often with co‐morbid psychiatric disorders. In addition, the setting and ward atmosphere in prisons are not designed to care for psychiatric patients and places a burden on vulnerable inmates. Management of care of the different subgroups in the prison population is therefore necessary on four different levels, from basic health care to forensic psychiatric treatment. A fifth level is forensic care, which is directed towards re‐integration into the community rather than treatment at the symptom‐level of disease. Continuity of care, evidence‐based care and coercion within mental health care are discussed with regard to their forensic ethical meaning towards both patients and the community. Drawing on the Dutch situation a case is made for the promotion of voluntary treatment for those prisoners

This chapter describes Andrews and Bonta's (2006) Principles of Effective Offender Treatment and its relevance for the treatment of sexual offenders. The three principles of this model are Risk, Needs and Responsivity. Each of these is described in some detail with the greatest emphasis being placed on general responsivity which is one of the two parts of the Responsivity Principle. Our interpretation of general responsivity differs from the view of others (e.g. Hanson et al., 2009) who define this aspect of Responsivity in terms of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT). While Andrews and Bonta indicate that within their meta-analyses, CBT programmes were the ones most likely to succeed; such programmes were not at all effective. It seems to us that a far more important aspect of general responsivity is what Andrews and Bonta describe as the Core Correctional Practices (CCP) which have to do with the way in which treatment is delivered. We review the CCPs in some detail and provide other evidence indicating that the style of treatment delivery is the crucial factor in determining effectiveness.

Effective treatment of patients with severe psychopathy is very difficult to achieve. This conclusion may be drawn from an extensive examination into the usage of the term ‘psychopathy’ in scientific research literature, in theoretical development from various psychological schools of thought, in the practice of therapy and in assessment. The central issue for the authors of this article is the inability of severely psychopathic patients to commit to the patient‐therapist relationship. Attachment theory and mentalisation‐based treatment are used here to define the cause and nature of this inability, which is incurred in very early childhood. These two models can aid in the development of more dynamic definitions of psychopathy, better suited to dynamic therapy formats.The ways in which psychopathy is defined partly account for a number of problems encountered in the practice of therapy. The authors assume that the treatment of psychopathy should be interactional and should match patients' individual levels of psychological development and mentalisation; highly psychopathic patients often perceive others as objects, ie. as part of the context, not as subjects, ie. autonomous personalities.The authors propose to conduct further research in order to verify the validity of their hypothesis. They also put forward a number of suggestions for therapy formats with a view to establishing effective working relationships with psychopathic patients.