Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of structured cognitive–behavioural treatment programmes in reducing criminal recidivism

  • Published:
Journal of Experimental Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports the outcome of a 17-month follow-up of structured, community-based, offence-focused, intervention programmes designed to reduce rates of re-conviction amongst adjudicated offenders under probation supervision. Three separate programmes were examined, all derived from a cognitive social learning model of risk factors for repeated involvement in crime. Using a quasi-experimental design, the study compared male offenders who had completed programmes (n = 215) with a non-completion group (n = 181), a group allocated to programmes but who had not commenced them (n = 339), and a control sample (n = 194) not allocated to the programmes. Outcome data analysis employed (a) an “intent to treat” between-group comparison, (b) “treatment received” methodology. In order to take account of selection bias, data were further analysed using instrumental variables and propensity scores; results suggested a possible treatment effect for moderate and higher-risk cases. Factors influencing different interpretations of these findings were considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the UK, during the period when this study was undertaken, the Home Office was the government department with responsibility for administration of criminal justice (amongst other matters). From May 2007 onwards, its functions were divided between two government departments, with police, prisons and probation being administered by a newly established Ministry of Justice. With respect to direct management, both Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate internal administrative systems. This paper describes changes in practice within England and Wales only.

  2. Other programmes are available for work with individuals who manifest a pattern of offences of specific types, e.g. programmes for violence, domestic violence, sexual offending, substance abuse, and driving while intoxicated. McGuire (2007) provides an overview of different programmes accredited for use in probation.

  3. The process of accreditation by expert panels was first instituted within HM Prison Service, and the programmes described here were initially approved for use in prison settings by the General Accreditation Panel, established in 1996. This preceded the formation of the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel which, from 2000 onwards, performed a similar function across both prison and probation services. There are some variations in the formats of the programmes accredited for use in prison and probation settings, respectively.

References

  • Andrews, D. A. (2001). Principles of effective correctional programs. In L. L. Motiuk & R. C. Serin (Eds.), Compendium 2000 on effective correctional programming (pp. 9–17). Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct, 3rd ed. Cincinnati: Anderson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angrist, J. D. (2006). Instrumental variables methods in experimental criminological research: what, why and how. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 23–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonowicz, D. H. (2005). The Reasoning and Rehabilitation Programme: Outcome evaluations with offenders. In M. McMurran & J. McGuire (Eds.), Social problem solving and offending: Evidence, evaluation and evolution (pp. 163–181). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aveline, M., Strauss, B., & Stiles, W. B. (2005). Psychotherapy research. In G. O. Babbard, J. S. Beck, & J. Holmes (Eds.), Oxford textbook of psychotherapy (pp. 449–462). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernfeld, G. A., Farrington, D. P., & Leschied, A. W. (Eds.). (2001). Offender rehabilitation in practice: Implementing and evaluating effective programmes. Chichester: Wiley.

  • Blud, L., & Travers, R. (2001). Interpersonal problem-solving skills training: A comparison of R&R and ETS. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 11, 251–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, S. & Turner, R. (2003). Barriers to starting programmes: Second phase report. (Research report, National Probation Service, West Yorkshire).

  • Clark, D. A. (2000). Theory manual for Enhanced Thinking Skills. Prepared for the Joint Prison-Probation Accreditation Panel. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • D’Agostino, R. B. (1998). Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 2265–2281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debidin, M., & Lovbakke, J. (2005). Offending behaviour programmes in prison and probation. In G. Harper & C. Chitty (Eds.), The impact of corrections on re-offending: A review of ‘what works’. Home Office Research Study 291, 2nd ed (pp.31–54). London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Des Jarlais, D. C., Lyles, C., Crepaz, N., & the TREND Group, (2004). Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioural and public health interventions: The TREND statement. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 361–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2004). The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 203–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D. P., Ditchfield, J., Hancock, G., Howard, P., Jolliffe, D., Livingston, M. S., & Painter, K. A. (2002a). Evaluation of two intensive regimes for young offenders. (Home Office Research Study No. 239. London: Home Office.)

  • Farrington, D. P., Gottfredson, D. C., Sherman, L. W., & Welsh, B. C. (2002b). The Maryland Scientific Methods Scale. In L. W. Sherman, D. P. Farrington, B. C. Welsh, & D. L. MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidence-based crime prevention (pp. 13–21). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D. P., & Petrosino, A. (2001). The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (1999). The forgotten issue in effective correctional treatment: Program implementation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 180–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goggin, C. & Gendreau, P. (2006). The implementation and maintenance of quality services in offender rehabilitation programmes. In C. R. Hollin & E. J. Palmer (Eds.), Offending behaviour programmes: Development, application, and controversies (pp. 209–246). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gondolf, E. W. (2004). Evaluating batterer counselling programs: A difficult task showing some effects and implications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 605–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, D. C., Najaka, S. S., Kearley, B. W. & Rocha, C. M. (2006). Long-term effects of participation in the Baltimore City drug treatment court: Results from an experimental study. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 67–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, N. S., Snowden, R. J., MacCulloch, S., Phillips, H., Taylor, J., & MacCulloch, M. (2004). Relative efficacy of criminological, clinical, and personality measures of future risk of offending in mentally disordered offenders: A comparative study of HCR-20, PCVL:SV and OGRS. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 523–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatcher, R., Bilby, C. A. L., Hollin, C. R., Hounsome, J., McGuire, J., & Palmer, E. J. (2008). Aggression Replacement Training with adult male offenders within community settings: A reconviction analysis. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology (in press).

  • Heinrich, C. J. (1998). Returns to education and training for the highly disadvantaged: What does it take to make an impact? Evaluation Review, 22, 637–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollin, C. R. (2006). Offending behaviour programmes and contention: Evidence-based practice, manuals, and programme evaluation. In C. R. Hollin & E. J. Palmer (Eds.), Offending behaviour programmes: Development, application, and controversies (pp. 33–67). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollin, C. R., McGuire, J., Housome, J. C., Hatcher, R. M., Bilby, C. A. L., & Palmer, E. J. (2008). Cognitive skills offending behaviour programmes in the community: A reconviction analysis. (Criminal Justice and Behavior, in press).

  • Hollin, C. R., McGuire, J., Palmer, E. J., Bilby, C., Hatcher, R., & Holmes, A. (2002). Introducing Pathfinder programmes into the Probation Service: An interim report. Home Office Research Study No. 247. London: Home Office.

  • Hollin, C. R., Palmer, E. J., McGuire, J., Hounsome, J., Hatcher, R., & Bilby, C. (2005). An evaluation of Pathfinder Programmes in the Probation Service. Unpublished research report. (Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate).

  • Hollin, C. R., Palmer, E., McGuire, J., Hounsome, J., Hatcher, R., Bilby, C., & Clark, C. (2004). Pathfinder Programmes in the Probation Service: A retrospective analysis. Online Report 66/04. London: Home Office).

  • Home Office (2002). Performance standards manual for the delivery of accredited individual programmes. London: Joint Prison-Probation Services Accreditation Panel, National Offender Management Service.

  • Izzo, R. L., & Ross, R. R. (1990). Meta-analysis of rehabilitation programs for juvenile delinquents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 134–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. S., D’Agostino, R. B., Gondolf, E. W. & Heckert, A. (2004). Assessing the effect of batterer program completion on reassault using propensity scores. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1002–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W. (1995) What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment with juvenile delinquents? In J. McGuire (Ed.) What Works: Reducing Reoffending: Guidelines from Research and Practice (pp. 63–78). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Can rehabilitative programs reduce the recidivism of juvenile offenders? An inquiry into the effectiveness of practical programs. Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, 6, 611–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., Chapman, G. L., & Landenberger, N. A. (2001). Cognitive–behavioural programs for offenders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 144–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipton, D. S., Pearson, F. S., Cleland, C. M., & Yee, D. (2002). The effectiveness of cognitive–behavioural treatment methods on recidivism. In J. McGuire (Ed.), Offender rehabilitation and treatment: Effective programmes and policies to reduce re-offending (pp. 79–112). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, C., Mair, G., & Hough, M. (1994). Explaining reconviction rates: A critical analysis. Home Office Research Study No.136. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

  • Mayer, J. P., Gensheimer, L. K., Davidson, W. S., & Gottschalk, R. (1986). Social learning treatment within juvenile justice: A meta-analysis of impact in the natural environment. In S. A. Apter & A. P. Goldstein (Eds.), Youth violence: Programs and prospects (pp. 24–38). Elmsford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. (2000). Think First: Programme manual. London: National Probation Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. (2004). Understanding psychology and crime: Perspectives on theory and action. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. (2005a). Social problem solving: Basic concepts, research, and applications. In M. McMurran & J. McGuire (Eds.), Social problem solving and offending: Evidence, evaluation and evolution (pp. 3–29). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. (2005b). The Think First programme. In M. McMurran & J. McGuire (Eds.), Social problem solving and offending: Evidence, evaluation and evolution (pp. 183–206). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. (2006). General offending behaviour programmes: Concept, theory, and practice. In C. R. Hollin & E. J. Palmer (Eds.), Offending behaviour programmes: Development, application, and controversies (pp. 69–111). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. (2007) Programmes for probationers. In G. McIvor & P. Raynor (Eds.) Developments in Social Work with Offenders (pp. 153–183). London: Jessica Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J., & Hatcher, R. (2001). Offence-focused problem-solving: Preliminary evaluation of a cognitive skills program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 564–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMurran, M., & Duggan, C. (2005). The manualisation of a treatment programme for personality disorder. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 15, 17–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, P. E., Stuart, S. P., & Dolan, S. L (2000). Research on psychotherapy efficacy and effectiveness: Between Scylla and Charybdis? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 964–981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Offender Management Service (2005). Annual report for accredited programmes 2004–2005. London: National Probation Directorate Interventions Unit, National Offender Management Service.

  • National Probation Service (2004). Annual report for accredited programmes 2003–2004. London: Home Office, National Probation Directorate.

  • Palmer, E. J., McGuire, J., Hounsome, J. C., Hatcher, R. M., Bilby, C. A. L., & Hollin, C. R. (2007). Offending behaviour programmes in the community: The effects on reconviction of three programmes with adult male offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 251–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porporino, F. J., & Fabiano, E. A. (2000). Theory manual for Reasoning and Rehabilitation (revised). (Ottawa: T3 Associates.)

  • Portney, L. G., & Watkins, M. P. (2000). Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raynor, P. (2004). The Probation Service ‘Pathfinders’: Finding the path and losing the way? Criminal Justice, 4, 309–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C. (2004). An early evaluation of a cognitive offending behaviour programme (‘Think First’) in probation areas. Vista: Perspectives on Probation, 8, 130–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D. (1995). The impact of cognitive skills training on post-release recidivism among Canadian federal offenders. Report R-41. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.

  • Robinson, D., & Porporino, F. J. (2001). Programming in cognitive skills: The Reasoning and Rehabilitation programme. In C. R. Hollin (Ed.), Handbook of offender assessment and treatment (pp. 179–193). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, R. R., & Fabiano, E. A. (1985). Time to think: A cognitive model of delinquency prevention and offender rehabilitation. Johnson City, TN: Institute of Social Sciences and Arts, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, R. R., Fabiano, E. A., & Ewles, C. D. (1988). Reasoning and Rehabilitation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 32, 29–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, D. A., Harper, H., Startup, M., Reynolds, S., Bird, D., & Suokas, A. (1994). The high water mark of the drug metaphor: A meta-analytic critique of process-outcome research. In R. L. Russell (Ed.), Reassessing psychotherapy research (pp. 1–35). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. W. (2003). Misleading evidence and evidence-led policy: Making social science more experimental. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589, 6–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, R. (2002). Reconviction of offenders on Think First. (Unpublished report, Research and Information Section, National Probation Service, Merseyside.)

  • Tong, L. S. J., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). How effective is the “Reasoning and Rehabilitation” programme in reducing re-offending? A meta-analysis of evaluations in three countries. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 12, 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Voorhis, P., Spruance, L. M., Ritchey, P. N., Listwan, S. J., & Seabrook, R. (2004). The Georgia cognitive skills experiment: A replication of Reasoning and Rehabilitation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 282–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westmarland, N., Hester, M., Reid, P., Coulson, S. & Hughes, J. (2002). An investigation into the factors associated with attrition in the Northumbria Probation Think First Programme. Sunderland: International Centre for the Study of Violence and Abuse, University of Sunderland.

  • Wilson, D. B., Bouffard, L. A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2005). A quantitative review of structured, group-oriented, cognitive–behavioral programs for offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 172–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. B., Gallagher, C. A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of corrections-based education, vocation and work programs for adult offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37, 568–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by a research project grant from the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate (RDS) to the Universities of Leicester and Liverpool. Views and opinions expressed in the paper are those of the authors and not of the Ministry of Justice. We thank the RDS for provision of funding for the conduct of this research. We are grateful to Professor Martin Crowder, Professor of Stochastic Modelling, Imperial College, London, and to Dr Ian Fletcher, Division of Clinical Psychology, University of Liverpool, for expert advice on the statistical analyses reported in the paper; and to Rebecca Daw and Maxine Richards for assistance with data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Clinical Psychology, University of Liverpool, Whelan Building, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK

    James McGuire

  2. Department of Criminology, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

    Charlotte A. L. Bilby

  3. School of Psychology, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

    Ruth M. Hatcher & Clive R. Hollin

  4. Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    Juliet Hounsome

  5. Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

    Emma J. Palmer

Authors
  1. James McGuire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charlotte A. L. Bilby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ruth M. Hatcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Clive R. Hollin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Juliet Hounsome
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Emma J. Palmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James McGuire.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McGuire, J., Bilby, C.A.L., Hatcher, R.M. et al. Evaluation of structured cognitive–behavioural treatment programmes in reducing criminal recidivism. J Exp Criminol 4, 21–40 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-007-9047-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-007-9047-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation