Advertisement

Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 73–102 | Cite as

Reducing criminal recidivism: evaluation of Citizenship, an evidence-based probation supervision process

  • Dominic A. S. PearsonEmail author
  • Cynthia McDougall
  • Mona Kanaan
  • Roger A. Bowles
  • David J. Torgerson
Article

Abstract

‘Citizenship’ is a structured probation supervision program based on ‘what works’ principles, designed for offenders on community orders or licenses supervised within the UK National Probation Service. The program was evaluated using survival analysis comparing the reconvictions of a cohort of all offenders in one probation area eligible for Citizenship over a 2-year period (n = 3,819) with those of a retrospective cohort of all eligible offenders in the same probation area receiving ‘traditional’ probation supervision (n = 2,110), controlling for risk related factors. At the 2-year stage, 50% of offenders in the comparison group had reoffended compared to 41% in the experimental group, and the difference between the survival curves was statistically significant. The hazard ratio was 0.69, which represents a 31% reduction in reconvictions in the experimental group over the proportion in the comparison group at any given time. Time to violation of a supervision order or post custody license was also statistically significantly longer in the experimental group. A key element of the program, promoting contact with community support agencies, was statistically significantly related to reduced reoffending in the Citizenship group. The overall effects remained after controlling for differences in risk scores although effectiveness varied by risk level. Contrary to other ‘what works’ research findings, the program was found to be most effective across the low–medium and medium–high risk thresholds, and was not effective with the highest risk group. This difference can be explained and is discussed in terms of risk, need, and responsivity principles. The Citizenship program was found to be cost-beneficial.

Keywords

Cognitive-behavioral Community reintegration Cost-benefits Evidence-based Offender Probation supervision Reconviction Risk need responsivity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research was funded by the Director of Offender Management – North East. The authors would like to thank Leila Sedgewick for her diligent and thorough collection and management of the data used in this evaluation.

References

  1. Alexander, M., & VanBenschoten, S. (2008). Evolution of supervision in the federal probation system. Federal Probation, 72(2), 15–21.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). LSI-R: The level of service inventory-revised. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Newark: LexixNexis.Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990a). Classification for effective rehabilitation: rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 17, 19–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. (1990b). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Antonowicz, D. H., & Ross, R. R. (1994). Essential components of successful rehabilitation programs for offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 38, 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonta, J., & Cormier, R. (1999). Corrections research in Canada: impressive progress and prospects. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 41(2), 235–248.Google Scholar
  9. Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., Rooney, J., & McEvoy, K. (2002). Evaluation of a restorative justice alternative to incarceration. Justice Review, 5(4), 319–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowles, R. A., & Pradiptyo, R. (2004). Reducing burglary initiative: an analysis of costs, benefits and cost effectiveness. Home Office Online Report 43. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  11. Bowles, R. A., & Florackis, C. (2007). Duration of the time to reconviction: evidence from UK prisoner discharge data. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brand, S., & Price, R. (2000). The economic and social costs of crime. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  13. Bruce, R., & Hollin, C. R. (2009). Developing citizenship. EuroVista: Probation and Community Justice, 1(1), 24–31.Google Scholar
  14. Coid, J., Yang, M., Ullrich, S., Zhang, T., Roberts, A., Roberts, C., et al. (2007). Predicting and understanding risk of reoffending: the prisoner cohort study. Research Summary, 6. London: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  15. Copas, J., & Marshall, P. (1998). The offender group reconviction scale: a statistical reconviction score for use by probation officers. Applied Statistics, 47, 159–171.Google Scholar
  16. Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression models and life tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 34, 187–220.Google Scholar
  17. Crow, I. (2001). The treatment and rehabilitation of offenders. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Cullen, F., Wright, J., & Applegate, B. (1996). Control in the community: the limits of reform. In A. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 69–116). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Dhiri, S., & Brand, S. (1999). Analysis of costs and benefits: guidance for evaluators, Crime Reduction Program Guidance Note 1. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  20. Dubourg, R., Hamed, J., & Thorns, J. (2005). The economic and social costs of crime against individuals and households 2003/04. London, Home Office Online Report 30/05. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  21. Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (2001). Correctional Program Assessment Inventory – 2000 (CPAI-2000). Saint John: Gendreau and Andrews.Google Scholar
  22. Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (2001). Implementing correctional interventions in the 'real world'. In G. A. Bernfeld, D. P. Farrington, & A. W. Leschied (Eds.), Inside the black box in corrections (pp. 247–268). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Gray, T., & Olson, K. (1989). A cost-benefit analysis of the sentencing decision for burglars. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 708–722.Google Scholar
  24. Gray, R., & Pearson, D. A. S. (2006). An interim investigation into the effectiveness of the Citizenship Programme. Unpublished paper. Research study 11: Durham Tees Valley Probation TrustGoogle Scholar
  25. Gray, N., Snowden, R. J., MacCulloch, S., Phillips, H., Taylor, J., & MacCulloch, M. J. (2004). Relative efficacy of criminological, clinical, and personality measures of risk of offending in mentally disordered offenders: a comparative study of HCR-20, PCL-SV, and OGRS. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(3), 523–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hale, C. (2005). Economic marginalization, social exclusion and crime. In C. Hale, K. Hayward, A. Wahldin, & E. Wincup (Eds.), Criminology (pp. 325–344). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1982). The meaning and use of the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology, 143, 29–36.Google Scholar
  28. H.M. Treasury. (2003). The Green Book: appraisal and evaluation in central government. London: TSO Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Hollin, C. R. (1995). The meaning and implications of program integrity. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: effective methods to reduce reoffending (pp. 195–208). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. Hollin, C. R. (1999). Treatment programs for offenders: meta-analysis, ‘What works’, and beyond. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 361–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Home Office. (1993). Reconvictions of those given probation and community service orders in 1987. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 18/93. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  32. Home Office. (1999). 'What Works' reducing reoffending: evidence-based practice. London: Home Office Communications Directorate.Google Scholar
  33. Home Office. (2002). Offender Assessment System: user Manual. London: National Probation Service.Google Scholar
  34. Home Office. (2008). Total recorded offences rate per 1000 population by local authority district. Retrieved January 29, 2010, from www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ia/atlas.html.
  35. Howard, P., Clark, D., & Garnham, N. (2006). An evaluation of the Offender Assessment System (OASys) in three pilots. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  36. Izzo, R. L., & Ross, R. R. (1990). Meta-analysis of rehabilitation programs for juvenile delinquents: a brief report. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 17, 134–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kaplan, E. L., & Meier, P. (1958). Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 53, 457–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Latessa, E. (1986). The cost effectiveness of intensive supervision. Federal Probation, 50(2), 70–74.Google Scholar
  39. Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. (1998). The importance of evaluating correctional programs: assessing outcome and quality. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2, 22–29.Google Scholar
  40. Latessa, E., & Lowenkamp, C. (2006). What works in reducing recidivism. University of St. Thomas Law Journal, 3(3), 521–535.Google Scholar
  41. Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: a meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In T. D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Cordray, H. Hartman, L. V. Hedges, R. J. Light, T. A. Louis, & F. Mosteller (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: a casebook (pp. 83–127). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  42. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1998). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders: a synthesis of research. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 313–345). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Lipsey, M. W., Landenberger, N. A., & Wilson, S. (2007). Effects of cognitive-behavioural programs for criminal offenders. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2007, 6. Retrieved January 29, 2010, from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/library.php.
  44. Lloyd, C., Mair, G., & Hough, M. (1994). Explaining reconviction rates: a critical analysis. Home Office Research Study 136. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  45. Lösel, F., & Köferl, P. (1989). Evaluation research on correctional treatment in West Germany: a meta-analysis. In H. Wegener, F. Lösel, & J. Haisch (Eds.), Criminal behaviour and the justice system: psychological perspectives (pp. 334–247). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  46. MacKenzie, D. L. (2000). Evidence-based corrections: identifying what works. Crime and Delinquency, 46(4), 457–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. May, C. (1999a). Explaining reconviction following a community sentence: the role of social factors. Home Office Research Study 192. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  48. May, C. (1999b). The role of social factors in predicting reconviction for offenders on community penalties. Home Office Research Findings 97. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  49. McDonald, C. (2003). Forward via the past? Evidence-based practice as strategy in social work. The Drawing Board: an Australian Review of Public Affairs, 3(3), 123–142.Google Scholar
  50. McDougall, C., Perry, A., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Overview of effectiveness of criminal justice interventions in the UK. In A. Perry, C. McDougall, & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Reducing crime: the effectiveness of criminal justice interventions (pp. 163–226). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  51. McDougall, C., Cohen, M., Swaray, R., & Perry, A. (2008). A benefit-cost analysis of sentencing. Campbell Collaboration Systematic Reviews. Retrieved January 29, 2010, from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/library.php.
  52. McGuire, J. (Ed.) (1995). What works: reducing reoffending. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  53. Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (1991). Motivational interviewing: preparing people to change addictive behaviours. New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  54. Ministry of Justice. (2008). Reoffending of adults: results from the 2006 cohort. Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin. London: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  55. Ministry of Justice. (2010). Local adult reoffending: latest statistics on the reoffending of adults on the probation caseload. Retrieved on February 17, 2010 from http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/local-adult-reoffending.htm.
  56. Myers, R., Miller, W., Smith, J., & Tonnigan, S. (2002). A randomized trial of two methods for engaging treatment-refusing drug users through concerned significant others. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70(5), 1182–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. National Institute of Corrections. (2005). Implementing evidence based practice in community corrections: the principles of effective interventions. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.Google Scholar
  58. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (2008). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal, London. Retrieved January 29, 2010, from http://www.nice.org.uk.
  59. Office for National Statistics (2010). Census 2001 – Ethnicity and religion in England and Wales. Retrieved February 11, 2010, from www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/north_east.asp#country.
  60. Oldfield, M. (1997). What worked? A five year study of probation reconvictions. Probation Journal, 44(1), 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Paparozzi, M., & Gendreau, P. (2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85(4), 445–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pearson, F. S., & Harper, A. G. (1990). Contingent intermediate sentences: New Jersey's Intensive Supervision Program. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pearson, F. S., Lipton, D. S., & Cleland, C. M. (1997, November). Rehabilitative programs in adult corrections: CDATE meta-analyses. (Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology. San Diego, CA.)Google Scholar
  64. Petersilia, J. (1999). Parole and prisoner re-entry in the United States. In M. Tonry & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Prisons: Crime and Justice: a review of research ((pp, Vol. 26, pp. 479–529). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  65. Petersilia, J., Turner, S., & Deschenes, E. (1992). Intensive supervision for drug offenders. In J. Byrne, A. Lurigio, & J. Perersilia (Eds.), Smart sentencing: the emergence of intermediate sanctions (pp. 12–17). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  66. Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Buehler, J. (2002). Scared Straight and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency: a systematic review of the randomized experimental evidence. Campbell Collaboration Systematic Reviews. Retrieved January 29, 2010, from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/library.php.
  67. Posovac, E. J., & Carey, G. (2003). Program evaluation: methods and case studies. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  68. Priestley, P. (2000). One-to-one cognitive behavioural program, theory and evidence. UK: McGuire and Priestley Associates.Google Scholar
  69. Redondo, S. (1994). El tratamiento de la delincuencia en Europa: Un estudio metaanalirico [The treatment of offenders in Europe: a meta-analysis]. Doctoral Thesis, University of Barcelona.Google Scholar
  70. Robinson, G., & Raynor, P. (2006). The future of rehabilitation: what role for the probation service? Probation Journal, 53(4), 334–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sherman, L., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B., & MacKenzie, D. (2002). Evidence-based crime prevention. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  72. Taxman, F. (2002). Supervision - Exploring the dimensions of effectiveness. Federal Probation, 66(2), 14–27.Google Scholar
  73. Taxman, F. (2008). No illusions: offender and organizational change in Maryland's proactive community supervision efforts. Criminology and Public Policy, 7(2), 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Taxman, F., Shepardson, E., & Byrne, J. (2004). Tools of the trade: a guide for incorporating science into practice. Washington: Community Corrections Division, National Institute of Corrections.Google Scholar
  75. Taxman, F., Thanner, M., & Weisburd, D. (2006). Risk, need and responsivity (RNR): it all depends. Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 28–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Thanner, M. H., & Taxman, F. (2003). Responsivity: the value of providing intensive services to high-risk offenders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 24(2), 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Trotter, C. (1996). The impact of different supervision practices in community corrections: cause for optimism. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 29, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Turner, S., & Petersilia, J. (1992). Focusing on high risk parolees: an experiment to reduce commitments to the Texas Department of Corrections. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29(1), 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. United States General Accounting Office. (1993). Intensive probation supervision: Crime control and cost-saving effectiveness. Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office.Google Scholar
  80. Van Voorhis, P., & Brown, K. (1996). Risk classification in the 1990s. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.Google Scholar
  81. Weibush, R. (1993). Juvenile intensive supervision: the impact on felony offenders diverted from institutional placement. Crime and Delinquency, 39(1), 68–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dominic A. S. Pearson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cynthia McDougall
    • 2
  • Mona Kanaan
    • 3
  • Roger A. Bowles
    • 4
  • David J. Torgerson
    • 3
  1. 1.PsychologyDurham Tees Valley Probation TrustDarlingtonUK
  2. 2.PsychologyUniversity of YorkYorkUK
  3. 3.Health SciencesUniversity of YorkYorkUK
  4. 4.Centre for Criminal Justice, Economics and PsychologyUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations