Interventions aimed at reducing re-offending in female offenders

86 Pages·2008·0.65 MB·English

Interventions aimed at reducing
re-offending in female offenders:
a rapid evidence assessment (REA)
Rachel Lart, Christina Pantazis, Simon Pemberton,
William Turner and Celia Almeida
Ministry of Justice Research Series 8/08
May 2008
Interventions aimed at reducing
re-offending in female offenders:
a rapid evidence assessment (REA)
Rachel Lart, Christina Pantazis, Simon Pemberton,
William Turner and Celia Almeida
This information is also available on the Ministry of Justice website:
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/research.htm
Offender Management and Sentencing Analytical Services exist to improve
policy making, decision taking and practice in support of the Ministry of Justice
purpose and aims to provide the public and Parliament with information
necessary for informed debate and to publish information for future use
Disclaimer
The views expressed are those of the authors and are not necessarily shared by the Ministry
of Justice (nor do they represent Government policy).
© Crown Copyright 2008.
Extracts from this document may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes on condition
that the source is acknowledged.
First Published 2008
ISBN: 978-1-84099-168-0
Acknowledgements
Research team
Rachel Lart and Christina Pantazis are Senior Lecturers, Simon Pemberton is a Lecturer and
William Turner a Research Associate in the School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol.
Celia Almeida is a freelance researcher, and previously worked in the Cochrane
Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group, School for Policy Studies,
University of Bristol.
We are grateful to Jenny Cann of the Ministry of Justice, and to the two anonymous
reviewers of the earlier draft of the report for their clear and helpful comments.
Contents
Summary i
1. Context 1
2. Research approach 4
Search strategy for identification of studies 5
Inclusion criteria 7
Quality appraisal 7
Data extraction 8
Data analysis 8
3. Results 9
The included studies 9
Prison-based interventions 13
Transitional services 19
Community-based interventions 20
4. Conclusions 23
Summarising the evidence 23
Gaps in the evidence and how they might be addressed 24
Conclusion 25
References 28
Appendix
A: Summary of primary studies of interventions 33
B: Searches 68
C: Inclusion/exclusion criteria for primary studies 70
D: Quality appraisal 71
Summary
This rapid evidence assessment (REA) aimed to:
● assess evidence on the effect of interventions for female offenders in terms of reducing
reconviction;
● identify the gaps in the existing evidence base;
● discuss how information from the review can best be used to fill in those gaps.
REAs have been developed as a way of achieving transparency, structure and balance in the
assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, within a shorter time
frame than would be possible with a fully developed systematic review (Davies, 2003). REAs,
therefore, use the principles of a systematic review, but with acknowledged concessions to
the shorter delivery time required.
The search for relevant studies to be included in this REA involved:
● searches of relevant electronic databases of publications;
● focused searching of key UK and international government websites;
● contact with, and focused searching of websites of, key non-governmental organisations
in the UK.
Results
Three meta-analyses and 16 primary studies were found which examined the impact on
reconviction of interventions with female offenders. From these, it was possible to suggest
the following.
● Targeting anti-social attitudes and anger, self-control, family processes (e.g. affection
and supervision), and anti-social associates was associated with reductions in women’s
re-offending.
● Targeting general educational needs was associated with reductions in women’s re-
offending.
● The evidence on in-prison drug treatment for women is mixed, but overall programmes
based on cognitive behavioural approaches were more promising than those based on
therapeutic community models.
● Residential treatment after prison enhanced effects of prison-based treatment.
● There was some evidence that discharge or transitional planning and continuity of input
from prison to community reduced reconviction rates among high risk women.
The literature was dominated by studies carried out in the US and Canada and there are
limits to the extent of transferability because of the different policy and organisational
i
contexts of the UK and North America. Additionally, there is a lack of studies on community-
based sentences and interventions. In the UK policy context this is a serious weakness.
There is a need to carry out good quality evaluations of community services, in particular the
type of women-only probation centre discussed by Durrance and Ablitt (2001). Finally, the
existing evidence base suffers from consistent methodological weaknesses.
● Sample sizes were often small and, as noted, all but a few studies were carried out in
the US.
● Sample selection was often weak or unexplained.
● In only one of the intervention studies was the allocation of participants to intervention
and control groups randomised. This is important because a process of randomisation
means that any differences found between the groups are more likely to be real and not
the result of biases in allocation.
● Matching of comparison groups was poor in many of the other comparative designs.
● Very few comparison interventions were genuinely ‘no treatment’. In most cases the
comparison group was receiving some kind of other intervention thus isolating the
impact of the intervention under study is not possible.
● The follow-up times for many studies were short (6 or 12 months) which means that
even where changes were found, there were limits to how long these changes could be
assumed to last.
Conclusions
The existing evidence tells us surprisingly little about what works with female offenders. The
findings above suggest some targets for intervention, but there are gaps in the evidence
regarding some of the most frequently cited issues like victimisation and self-esteem. There
is also very little known about use of, and effectiveness of, community-based as opposed
to prison-based services. This lack of evidence exists both because research has not been
done on those areas, and because what research has been done is not of sufficient quality
to yield robust data for policy. The needs of, and work with, female offenders have a high
policy salience at present. It is important that where policy cannot yet draw on a robust
evidence base, there is careful evaluation of developments that are introduced. This REA
has highlighted shortcomings in existing research which should inform the planning of future
research. In particular, there is a need to use strong research designs, with good matching
and use of appropriate comparison groups.
ii
1. Context
This rapid evidence assessment (REA) was undertaken to establish what is known about
the effectiveness of interventions for female offenders which are designed to reduce re-
conviction. It was carried out as part of a broader REA on the needs of, and interventions for,
female offenders, commissioned by the Home Office, prior to the formation of the Ministry of
Justice.
Criminal justice policy in the UK has stressed that the tackling of re-offending by correctional
services should incorporate punishment, reparation and also rehabilitation (Home Office,
2006a). Rehabilitative interventions are underpinned by the identification of factors that put
people at risk of re-offending in order to develop ways of addressing them. The concept
of ‘criminogenic need’ has been developed to distinguish between those factors that are
known to be predictive of future offending (‘criminogenic’), and therefore should be the target
of interventions, and those which are not, or are less directly related to re-offending. The
literature further identifies those factors which are essentially static (for example, a history
of past offending) and distinguishes them from those which are dynamic (for example,
accommodation and education) and therefore, in theory at least, amenable to change
through interventions aimed at reducing re-offending. Dynamic factors known to be predictive
of offending are therefore known as criminogenic ‘needs’ (Andrews and Bonta, 1998) and
form the targets for interventions with offenders.
Andrews and Bonta (1988) further proposed that successful intervention programmes aimed
at reducing re-offending depended not only on targeting criminogenic needs, but should also
incorporate the principles of risk and responsivity. Risk is concerned with identifying those
offenders who should receive the most intensive allocation of correctional treatment (Dowden
& Andrews, 1999:439) whilst responsivity relates to the “characteristics of the program
delivery” which should match to the learning styles of the offender. Although these principles
could provide a coherent framework for effective rehabilitation, within such a framework are
important gender considerations which should be taken into account in order to ensure that
interventions with female offenders are successful (Sorbello et al., 2002).
Is it reasonable to assume that criminogenic needs and therefore effective interventions
for women may differ from those identified for men? Women’s offending certainly displays
a different pattern to the offending of men; women offend less frequently than men, begin
offending at a later age and desist much earlier (Harper et al., 2005). Consequently they form
a minority both within the prison population and among those serving community sentences.
On 30 November 2007, only 4,512 offenders of the total 81,227 prison population of England
and Wales were female (Ministry of Justice, 2007a). Additionally, 22% of the total prison
female population are from a foreign national background which compares to 13% of the
male population (Ministry of Justice 2007b). The criminogenic needs of foreign nationals may
1
well differ from the needs of other female offenders but they remain an under-researched
group of offenders to date (for exceptions see Green, 1996; Chigwada-Bailey, 2003).
Among offenders serving community sentences women are also a minority, albeit a slightly
larger one: in 2005/06, 19,300 out of a total of 111,700 people given community sentences
were women (Home Office, 2007a).
There has been a policy focus on the needs of women within the criminal justice system,
and on reducing offending by women, in recent years. The Women’s Offending Reduction
Programme, a three year multi-agency strategy launched in 2003 aimed to reduce women’s
offending, and the number of women in custody, through “providing a better tailored and
more appropriate response to the particular factors which have an impact on why women
offend” (Home Office, 2004:5).
There is a dearth of reviewed evidence as to ‘what works’ with women offenders, despite a
wealth of studies of male offenders and the suggestion that women’s criminogenic needs
may not necessarily be the same. Only three studies in a review by Harper and Chitty (2005)
of ‘what works’ with offenders included women, while for their meta-analysis of interventions
with female offenders, Dowden and Andrews (1999) were only able to identify 26 studies
solely (16) or predominantly (10) involving women. In one much cited study, Koons et al.
(1997) outlined which needs were thought by correctional administrators to be the most
promising targets for intervention with women offenders. These needs overlapped with, but
were somewhat different to, those previously identified as criminogenic needs among male
offenders. Specifically, Koons et al., (1997), suggested that focusing on the consequences
for female offenders of their experience of abuse and victimisation would be significant in
reducing re-offending; there is good evidence that female offenders have high levels of
psychological needs and that these are often linked to histories of physical and sexual abuse
as both adults and children. (HMIP, 1997; Browne et al., 1999; Lart et al., 1999; Byrne and
Howells, 2002; Bartlett, 2003; Hooper, 2003).
The interrelationship of these experiences and offending is part of the implicit framework
for several UK Government strategy documents: for example, The Women’s Offending
Reduction Plan, which states that “the variety of factors which can affect why women offend,
[include] poor housing, mental health problems, substance misuse, abuse, child care,
education and employment” (Home Office, 2004:3). The Co-ordinated Prostitution Strategy
highlights that successful routes out of street prostitution will need to include treatment for
drug problems for what is “a particularly vulnerable group of problematic drug users due to
their need to finance their drug use, and often that of their partners, through prostitution”
(Home Office 2006b: 43) as well as counselling and support for “varied and complex mental
health needs”, traumatic experiences such as childhood abuse, loss of children to care and
the experience of domestic violence (Home Office 2006b: 51). The Updated Drug Strategy
2
states that “[r]esearch has shown the links between organised crime and drug markets, and
between prostitution and drug use. Women engaging in such activities are likely to jeopardise
their chances of leading a normal life as a member of the community” (Drugs Strategy
Directorate, 2002: 40).
While this REA was being carried out, a Review of Women with Particular Vulnerabilities in
the Criminal Justice System was carried out by Baroness Jean Corston, reporting in March
2007 (Home Office, 2007b). The overarching recommendations of the Corston Report were:
better co-ordination and governance, including the establishment of an Inter-Ministerial
Group and a Women’s Commission to provide “visible leadership and a strategic approach”
(Home Office 2007b:6); building on previous work such as that of the Women’s Offending
Reduction Programme; and reducing the number of women inappropriately in custody. In
particular, her report draws attention to the work of community-based ‘Women’s Centres’;
providing referral, diversion from custody and sentencing options through the delivery of a
range of services including probation. Baroness Corston also draws attention to the need to
consider the implications of the Equality Act 2006 and the gender equality duty, arguing that
the “differences between male and female offenders…indicate that a different and distinct
approach is needed for women” (Home Office 2007b:3). This REA is, therefore, timely, in
evaluating the existing literature on interventions with female offenders, and identifying gaps
in the evidence base.
3