The Rehabilitation of Offenders: A Strength-Based Desistance Approach

Transcription

1 The Rehabilitation of Offenders: A Strength-Based Desistance Approach Tony Ward, PhD, DipClinPsyc Victoria University of Wellington tony.ward@vuw.ac.nz

2 Key Papers Laws, D. R. & Ward, T. (2011). Desistance from sexual offending: Alternatives to throwing away the keys. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Ward, T. & Laws, D. R. (2010). Desistance from sexual offending: Motivating change, enriching practice. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. Ward, T., & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the risk paradigm. London, UK: Routledge.

3 Introduction Offenders are people like us who have made bad choices and acted upon them in ways that unacceptably harm others. Because offenders share our inherent value when hold them to account should be in a way that is respectful of their status and that seeks to draw them back into the communities from which they came. Or for many, into communities that are better equipped to truly include them and provide resources so they can fashion better lives. Importance of desistance processes!

4 Concept of Desistance Desistance is not an event, but a process replete with lapses, relapses, and recoveries, similar to the addiction relapse prevention model originally espoused by Marlatt and Gordon (1985). Thus desistance research seeks to describe the change processes that are associated with individuals turning away from lives of crime and becoming reintegrated into the community (McNeill, Batchelor, Burnett, & Knox, 2005).

5 Factors Influencing Desistance Major desistance factors have been identified in the research literature that are somewhat independent of therapeutic interventions (Laws & Ward, 2011). Create turning points (Sampson & Laub, 1993; Laub & Sampson, 2003) or hooks for change (Giordano et al., 2007). Aging : ultimately the most powerful influence on desistance, as age offending drop off- a robust old finding.

6 Factors Influencing Desistance Marriage: breaks up the routine of ordinary criminal associations and activities (Warr, 1998). Military service: discipline and responsibility, heterogeneous environment, non criminal influences (Sampson & Laub, 1993). Cognitive transformation: creation of new selfnarratives (Maruna, 2001). Pygmalion effect: expectations of others lead to changes in self-belief & subsequent performance (Maruna et al., 2003).

7 Factors Influencing Desistance Knifing off: refers to literally cutting one s bonds to the criminal past (Maruna & Roy, 2007). Spirituality: Giordano et al. (2008) church participation can provide entrée to a more prosocial network and social support. Education: secure good paying jobs with reasonably high status, assisted in maintaining stable & happy marriages and desistance from crime (Moffitt et al. (2002). Relationships/ social networks : entailed!

8 General Protective Factors (Lösel 2010) 1.Stable emotional relationship with at least one reference person 2.Acceptance and supervision in educational contexts 3.Adequate social support 4.Social models that encourage constructive coping 5.Dosed social responsibilities Lösel (1998), Werner & Smith (2000)

9 Resilience Research: Relatively General Protective Factors (2) (Lösel 2010) 6. Cognitive competencies (e.g. future planning) 7. An easy temperament and ego resiliency 8. Experiences of self-efficacy and an adequate self-concept 9. Active coping with stressors and strains 10. Experience of sense, structure, and meaning in life

10

11 Mean Effect Sizes of Offender Rehabilitation (1) (Lösel 2010) General and violent offenders Typical range: d = Example: d = 0.20 (r =.10) 50% recidivism in CG vs. 40% in TG 10 percentage points or 18% reduction Small but highly significant

12 Mean Effect Sizes of Offender Rehabilitation Programmes (2) (Lösel 2010) Effective programmes: ca. 10% - 30% reduction in reoffending Benefit-cost ratios positive: payoff for each / /$ etc. invested Lifetime costs for 1 very persistent offender could sum up to more than 1 million / /$ For comparsion: some effect sizes in medicine: Radiation + chemotherapy of brain tumors: ca. 10% Aspirin therapy of cardiovascular events: ca. 13% Passive smoking and lung cancer: ca. 22% Drug treatment of depression: ca. 56%

13 Some Outcome Moderators (Lösel 2010) Larger effects in smaller samples high risk offenders community & clinic (vs. prison) programmes with some individual elements (not group sessions only) better descriptive validity

14 The R-N-R Approach of Appropriate Offender Treatment Risk principle (Adequate intensity) Need principle (Address criminogenic needs) Responsivity principle (Adequate modes of learning and teaching) Up to 60% reduction of recidivism if R-N-R principles realized Problems of R-N-R: Some circularity regarding Responsivity; Risk not individualized etc Ward & Maruna (2007)

15 Best Practice With Offenders Evaluations provide reasonable, evidence for efficacy of best practice treatment programs (Andrews & Bonta, 2006;Hanson et al, 2009; Lösel, 2010 ). E.g., Lösel & Schmucker (2005) meta-analytic review of sex offender treatment: sex offenders reoffending at a significantly lower rate (11.1%) than the various comparison groups (17.5%) While outcome studies show treated offenders recidivate at a lower rate than untreated ones, do not know why this is the case!

16 Third Generation of What Works : Perspectives (Lösel 2010) Importance of personal resources and relationships Importance of social resources Beyond rehabilitation as a programme technology But basing on and increasing replicable evidence Integrating offending behaviour programmes with the broader context and range of services (no silo approach)

17 The Good Lives Model GLM is a strength-oriented rehabilitation theory that aims to equip offenders with internal and external resources to successfully desist from further offending. Assumes all individuals have similar aspirations and needs (primary goods) and that one of primary responsibilities of parents, teachers, and the broader community is to help person acquire tools required to make own way in the world. Frequently unsuccessful- crime, psych #

18 The Good Lives Model GLM is strength-based because responsive to offenders particular interests, abilities, and aspirations. Also directs practitioners to explicitly construct intervention plans that help offenders acquire capabilities to achieve things that personally meaningful, while reducing dynamic risk (Ward & Maruna, 2007).

19 The Good Lives Model A GLM derived program seeks to tailor intervention plan (GLP) around an offender s core values and associated practical identities. GLP unfolds from this value centre and incorporates all various goods required to function as a reflective and effective agent within specific environments. Where possible, local communities and resources are recruited and objective to assist in building of a better life rather than simply trying to contain risk.

20 The Good Lives Model and Desistance An important point to consider is the relationship between the natural desistance process and desistance that is indirectly or directly triggered by the intentional actions of correctional staff. Natural desistance is a powerful source of change which has been neglected by offender treatment providers. But mistake to state that treatment mere additional extra, something that may be useful for nudging offenders into taking up external opportunities and not a powerful source of change in its own right.

21 The Good Lives Model and Desistance The use of ineffective or counterproductive cognitive and behavioral strategies arising from impoverished or flawed GLP s can result in personally frustrating and/or socially unacceptable actions. By participating in well structured programs individuals are more likely to be able to engineer, or take advantage of, natural desistance opportunities and processes in the future

22 The Good Lives Model and Desistance Some individuals might require more scaffolding than others in acquiring the capacities necessary to construct and put into action a plan for living that is adaptive and meaningful. Sometimes a greater need for professional input is a legacy of offenders living in particularly impoverished social environments with minimal social capital and sometimes it is because possess few psychological resources of their own.

23 The Good Lives Model and Desistance In either of these situations treatment programs can be helpful: former setting out to instil psychological skills with latter concentrating on creating social opportunities and supports. Thus differences between natural and professionally assisted desistance may reside in the psychological and social resources available to specific individuals rather than representing qualitatively distinct routes to offence free lives.

24 The Good Lives Model and Desistance As a comprehensive rehab theory GLM is ideally placed to integrate desistance ideas while still advocating for the utility of treatment programs for some offenders. What rehabilitation options are offered to offenders should depend on their specific needs and capacities (i.e., psychological capital) in conjunction with their social and physical circumstances (i.e., social capital).

25 The Good Lives Model and Desistance Offender may need a period of intensive (community) social support and vocational skills training without therapy input OR Requires more ongoing specialist interventions because of major social and self-regulation skills deficits. Key point: the level and duration of support needed by individuals based around capacity to act in service of their goals in ways that are ethically permissible and meaningful.

26 The Good Lives Model and Desistance Three strands in desistance theory, those that stress the importance of maturation, agency, and social relationships (McNeill et al, 2005; Maruna, 2001). GLM s focus on practical identities, interdependency, basic needs etc resonates with these ideas. GLM s stress on agency and the importance of reflectiveness is entirely consistent with D emphasis on "turning points.

27 The Good Lives Model and Desistance A problem to date with desistance oriented intervention suggestions has been a lack of a theoretical framework or theory to focus and justify such intervention directed efforts. Typically, list desistance factors and provide some explanation why likely promote crime reduction etc. Weak when it comes to explaining why offender(!) are motivated to desire and seek certain outcomes, and what such natural motivation implies for both intervention and desistance initiatives.

28 The Good Lives Model and Desistance GLM can provide a theoretically grounded and systematic theory to explain why promoting strengths such as work or a sound marriage is desirable and should increase an offender s chances of remaining offense free. It also has the resources to explicitly guide and coordinate specific intervention efforts across a wide range of correctional professionals. That is, extents beyond therapy contexts: community work, probation, prevention etc.

29 A GLM- Desistance Intervention Approach Agreement between the GLM and desistance theories that intervention programs ought to be tailored to take account of the specific talents, aspirations, and circumstances of individual offenders and their lives. Attention to the social and personal circumstances of offenders lives also means intervening where necessary to repair damaged relationships with family, peers, or the wider community.

30 A GLM- Desistance Intervention Approach Another point of agreement between the GLM and desistance theories is that care should be taken when attempting to persuade individuals to give up crime to look to build strengths rather than simply eradicate, control, or manage risk. GLM and desistance theories share view that an effective rehabilitation strategy ought to be holistic in its orientation and attend to individuals array of social, material, and psychological needs

31 A GLM- Desistance Intervention Approach If intervention works by reconnecting or connecting people with valued social and personal networks, then long-term desistance requires casting a wider net than is typically done (Farrall, 2002). Helping offenders re-evaluate their values and goals and to construct practical identities that are truly redemptive necessitates creating dialogues based on mutual respect and openness. Such dialogues are unlikely to be concentrated on discussions of criminogenic needs or reoffending patterns.

32 A GLM- Desistance Intervention Approach Suspect topics raised will be those of work, children, wives, husbands, sports teams, hobbies, and religion, and so on (see Laws & Ward, in press). If risk is to be a focus it should be configured in ways that link up with the topic of growth, not of containment and restriction. Creating a sound therapeutic alliance is a pivotal component of effective intervention (Lösel 2010).

33 Conclusions Incorporation (or elaboration) of desistance concepts gives GLM greater horizontal and vertical scope. Not enough to enhance offenders empathy skills or equip with the ability to cope with stress or emotional loneliness. Practitioners should also be looking to create social supports and opportunities, & help create ways of living that follow from a personally significant, and ethically acceptable, (redemptive) practical identity.