Impact evaluation of the prison-based Core Sex Offender Treatment Programme: a success story. Laura Di Bella, Mark Purver, and Aidan Mews

Similar documents
Research Summary 7/09

The Offender Assessment System (OASys): Development, validation and use in practice

Corrections, Public Safety and Policing

Justice Data Lab Re offending Analysis: Prisoners Education Trust

Reducing Prisoner Reoffending

Assessing ACE: The Probation Board s Use of Risk Assessment Tools to Reduce Reoffending

New Me Coping UK. Type of intervention. Target group/s, level/s of prevention and sub-group/s: Target population. Delivery organisation

Reoffending Analysis for Restorative Justice Cases : Summary Results

Validation of Risk Matrix 2000 for Use in Scotland

Becoming New Me UK. Type of intervention. Target group, level of prevention and sub-groups: Target population. Delivery organisation

Recent thinking and results from OASys

Outcome evidence on offender rehabilitation: the role of probation programmes

MSc Criminology with Forensic Psychology

Youth Justice National Development Team. Youth Justice National Development Team Annual Report. Fiona Dyer

Trier, June 2018

PRISON REFORM TRUST. A Review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTOR. Strategic Intent YEAR PLAN

Barnsley Youth Justice Plan 2017/18. Introduction

MSc Forensic Psychology. Joining Instructions 2018/2019

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS projects mentoring

Justice Data Lab Re-offending Analysis: Family Man Safe Ground

Drug Court Victoria. Katharine Biffin Program Manager Drug Court Melbourne May 2018

Psychometric qualities of the Dutch Risk Assessment Scales (RISc)

1 Frontier Economics

In Numbers a statistical overview of the NOMS Co-financing Organisation. South East Round 1: Custody & Community

The Violence Against Women and Domestic Abuse

POST-SENTENCE INITIATIVES FOR SEX OFFENDERS IN THE COMMUNITY: A PSYCHOLOGIST S PERSPECTIVE

Jack Serious Case review. Learning Lessons

Strengthening Continuity of Care: New Zealand s Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Aftercare Worker Pilot

The economic case for and against prison

Christina M BSC (Hons.), MSC., CPsychol., AFBPsS

TABLE OF CONTENT INTRODUCTION, HISTORIC OVERVIEW, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH ON OFFENDER NEEDS AND RISK ASSESSMENT

Centre for Justice Innovation. The future of Intensive Community Orders: A summary of the PCA/CJI roundtable on 13 th December 2012

Basic Risk Assessment. Kemshall, H., Mackenzie, G., Wilkinson, B., (2011) Risk of Harm Guidance and Training Resource CD Rom, De Montfort University

YJB THEORY OF CHANGE SEMINAR 2

Presentation of Results of RJ Research. Dr Heather Strang Institute of Criminology Cambridge University

Cannabis use and adverse outcomes in young people: Summary Report

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Sue Gower, KSCB

REDUCING REOFFENDING

UNCLASSIFIED SENTENCE PLANNING. 17 December December December 2016

AQA A Level Psychology

THE CASE OF NORWAY: A RELAPSE

Criminal Justice Reform: Treatment and Substance Use Disorder

An Inspection of the National Probation Service s substance misuse work with offenders. 'Half Full and Half Empty

Dumfries and Galloway Alcohol and Drug Partnership. Strategy

Drinking patterns and violent behaviour amongst young people in England and Wales

The Wise Group Community Justice Briefing

How to evaluate probation. Lecturer PhD Ioan Durnescu CEP Unity & Diversity Conference Tallinn, September 2007

In Numbers a statistical overview of the NOMS Co-financing Organisation. East of England Round 1: Custody & Community

Programme Specification. MSc/PGDip Forensic and Legal Psychology

In Numbers a statistical overview of the NOMS Co-financing Organisation. South West Round 1: Community

Conflict of interest?

An evaluation of the Sycamore Tree programme: based on an analysis of Crime Pics II data

SCS topic headings: Partnership Working, Home Safety, Safety of Vulnerable Groups, Personal Safety

Keynote Speakers. Professor Friedrich Lösel - Emeritus Professor, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge

Criminal Justice Project: Drug Interventions Programme

I understand that the Royal Commission is particularly interested in:

A response to. Improving Health within Criminal Justice. Department of Health / Department of Justice

Working together to reduce reoffending. BeNCH CRC PROSPECTUS. A leading provider of innovative justice services that change people s lives

Being Evidence Based. Ruth E Mann, PhD ATSA 2018

limit the number of drug diversions

For its rehabilitative programmes, the Department of Corrections has adopted the

RBWM Youth Offending Team. CSP/YOT Management board 9 December 2015 Louise Hulse

YOUNG MEN AND GANGS. Coproducing a Mental Health Service for Young People with Complex Needs. Dr Richard Grove.

GOVERNMENT OF BERMUDA Ministry of Culture and Social Rehabilitation THE BERMUDA DRUG TREATMENT COURT PROGRAMME

Preventive detention as a measure to keep sentences short. Randi Rosenqvist Oslo University hospital and Ila prison

Circles of Support and Accountability. A community approach to the rehabilitation of Sex Offenders Maxine Myatt, Interim Chief Executive, Circles UK

Delivering better publıc servıces BETTER PUBLIC SERVICE RESULT 7 REDUCING SERIOUS CRIME RESULT ACTION PLAN

Executive Summary Dr Sam Wright

Young people in custody learning thinking skills: Experiences; Skills and Developments Directorate of Public Sector Prisons

Delivering within the CJS

Domestic Abuse Matters: Police responders and Champions training

Context of the paper

PECAN: MOVING ON. Through the gate mentoring for young women in South East London. March 2015

Illicit drug use in prisons

Using Criminal Career Data in Evaluation

Building the Restorative City

Review of Youth Justice Group Conferencing Program

Our Clients, Our Services, Our Impact

DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY ALCOHOL AND DRUG PARTNERSHIP; PRIORITY ACTIONS AND

Reset: An Opportunity to Enhance Offender Resettlement and Rehabilitation through Mentoring

Targeting and Delivering Offender Management in Custody. Practice Guidance for Offender Supervisors

What works in policing domestic abuse?

Report-back on the Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court Pilot and other AOD-related Initiatives

Mixed-methods evaluation of the Breaking Free Online (Health and Justice) treatment and recovery programme for substance misuse in prisons

STATIC 99R and Community Notification

RJ on a tight budget making it happen, feeling the benefits. Steve Searle Cumbria Y.O.S Prevention Manager

NIACRO Response. Strategy for Culture and Arts

EXAMINATION OF THE USE OF SELF-REPORT PSYCHOMETRICS WITHIN SEXUAL OFFENDER TREATMENT AND IN PREDICTION OF REOFFENDING

Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (VAWDASV)

ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES AND INTERVENTIONS

Chapter 2 WHY DO WE PUNISH? Introduction to Corrections CJC 2000 Darren Mingear

Integrating evidence-based practice and performance management

Annexes 91 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 PART 1: BACKGROUND AND PROCESS 13 PART 2: WOMEN OFFENDERS IN SCOTLAND TODAY 17

Offender Desistance Policing: Operation Turning Point Experiment in Birmingham UK. Peter Neyroud CBE QPM University of Cambridge

Working with Sexual Offenders with Learning Disabilities. Carrie Webb Senior Co-ordinator Circles South East

The Children and Social Work Act The role of voluntary sector CSE services in new safeguarding arrangements

Circles of Support and Accountability: The Characteristics of Core Members in England and Wales

Dispute Resolution and Psychology

C r i m e a n d C o m m u n i t y S a f e t y

Transcription:

Impact evaluation of the prison-based Core Sex Offender Treatment Programme: a success story Laura Di Bella, Mark Purver, and Aidan Mews

Background The task: Evaluating the impact of prison-based Core Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP) on reoffending. SOTP was a cognitive-behavioural psychological intervention intended to reduce sexual re-offending amongst sex offenders Delivered by NOMS (HMPPS) to imprisoned sex offenders Accredited by CSAAP since 1992 Available in approximately one-quarter of male prisons in England and Wales Available for those sentenced to over 12 months - with a current (index) sex offence or a history of sexual offending; min 18 years old

Previous research on core-sotp Evaluation of 2000 SOTP (Friendship et al. 2003): - No impact on sexual reoffending - Reduced reconviction rates for treated offenders for combined sexual & violent reoffending Some experts claimed that NOMS had overstated the evidence of SOTP s effectiveness. Challenges in the field: Low reoffending rates Heterogeneity of sex offenders Small samples/short follow-up periods Poorly matched counterfactuals

The process Multi disciplinary team (social researchers and statisticians), bringing together a range of expertise in data linking, evaluation design, research methods and statistics. Expert advisory panel was set up: 1) Academic experts in evaluation and quasi-experimental designs 2) Academic experts in sex offending research 3) Experts from other Government departments 4) Practitioners from the prison service Experts and stakeholders were consulted at multiple stages, from design set-up to report drafting.

Creating the database Master Treatment Database 11,582 identified prisoners receiving any treatment (1996-2013) ANALYSIS DATASET Reoffending Cohort Database Yearly prison release data (2002-2012) Derived from several NOMS datasets Police National Computer (PNC) Comprehensive records on individual s criminal/court history 2,562 1 Treatment 13,219 Comparison OASys Offence types Re-categorisation of 320 sex offences into 30 categories of victim characteristics & seriousness Offender Assessment System database (2004-2012) Criminal/personal history Dynamic variables (attitudes & motivation) 1 Treated people who met inclusion criteria

Index Sentence Release Non-Sexual Offence Sexual Offence Prison Sentence Treatment (core-sotp) 6 Comparison 2000 2002 Treatment Period 2012 2015 Release Period Re-offending Period >18 <18 >18 Treatment incomplete treatment Excluded Any treatment commencing before 2000

Creating the counterfactual Treated and untreated offenders were matched using Propensity Score Matching A range of static & dynamic matching factors were included The two matched groups were compared on a range of proven reoffending outcomes (sexual and non-sexual) Outcome measures were calculated over a period of up to 13.9 years (average of 8.2 years)

RESULTS: Reoffending rate over follow-up period (average 8.2 years) Treated rate Comparison rate Difference T-value Total 39.4% 38.9% 0.5%pts 0.35 Sexual 10.0% 8.0% 2.0%pts 2.45* Non-sexual 24.0% 23.7% 0.3%pts 0.27 Adult serious 2.7% 2.4% 0.3%pts 0.59 Adult other 2.1% 1.4% 0.7%pts 1.86 Child contact 2.2% 2.1% 0.1%pts 0.18 Child image 4.4% 2.9% 1.6%pts 2.96* Child other 0.5% 1.0% -0.4%pts -1.86 Breach 21.9% 22.4% -0.5%pts -0.41 Soliciting 0.3% 0.1% 0.2%pts 1.36

RESULTS: Sexual reoffending survival rate over follow-up period

Conclusions from the evaluation The results suggest that while Core SOTP in prisons is generally associated with little or no changes in sexual and non-sexual reoffending, there were some statistically significant differences. The small changes in the sexual reoffending rate suggest that either Core SOTP does not reduce sexual reoffending as it intends to do, or that the true impact of the Programme was not detected. The Sun: THERAPY HELPS PERVS: Sex offenders who complete group therapy in jail are more likely to commit similar crimes, review finds New Statesman: When you put a bunch of rapists together, the message that some take away is this: oh, I m not so deviant after all. And anyway, that guy is worse. Group treatment may normalise individuals behaviour: when stories are shared, their behaviour may not be seen as wrong or different, the Ministry of Justice report found. The response to the Weinstein coverage has borne this out.

Conclusions: main factors that facilitated success 1. Multidisciplinary team being put in place 2. Independence from the programme 3. Senior management understanding of challenges, and willing to support the project 4. Access to large sample and long follow-up period 5. Collaboration from partners, that ensured access to the data 6. Expert scrutiny across all stages, from set-up to write-up.