Astrid Birgden, Just Forensic & Deakin University - Advancements in reducing reoffending: Including offender rights in rehabilitation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Astrid Birgden, Just Forensic & Deakin University - Advancements in reducing reoffending: Including offender rights in rehabilitation



Dr Astrid Birgden, Consultant Forensic Psychologist, Just Forensic and Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor, Deakin University delivered this presentation at the 5th Prison Planning, Design, ...

Dr Astrid Birgden, Consultant Forensic Psychologist, Just Forensic and Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor, Deakin University delivered this presentation at the 5th Prison Planning, Design, Construction and Maintenance conference. This conference follows the production of existing, developing and future correctional facilities across Australia.

For more information, go to



Total Views
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Astrid Birgden, Just Forensic & Deakin University - Advancements in reducing reoffending: Including offender rights in rehabilitation Astrid Birgden, Just Forensic & Deakin University - Advancements in reducing reoffending: Including offender rights in rehabilitation Presentation Transcript

    • Advancements in reducing reoffending: Including offender rights in rehabilitation Dr Astrid Birgden Consultant Forensic Psychologist, Just Forensic & Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor, Deakin University Dec 2013 40 mins
    • Community Protection Policies/Strategies Evidence Ethics 1. Does it work? 2. Is it the right thing to do?
    • Evidence Base The Campbell Collaboration: Applies rigorous and systematic reviews of the effect of interventions, including in the CJS: provide the “gold standard”. Meta-Analyses: - Combine the results of numerous studies - Build theory and inform policy. Effect size: A common measure of the strength of the relationship between two variables.
    • Sentencing Principles Punish Rehabilitate Incapacitate/ Deter
    • Sentencing Principles Punish Rehabilitate Incapacitate/ Deter
    • Punish Seriousness of the offence receives a response by the state proportional to the harm caused (Ashworth, 2006)
    • Punish • Sentenced to corrections as punishment, not for punishment. Prison as punishment:  Only temporarily suppresses the undesired behaviour;  Teaches more undesirable behaviours;  Behaviour change is unlikely to occur if the offender is treated with disrespect and lack of dignity. (Sanson et al, 1995)
    • Campbell Collaboration: Offender Rehabilitation Prison vs Community 27 studies; 5 adequate studies (Villettaz, Killias & Zoder, 2006):  In 11/13 (85%)- community sanctions reduced re-offending.  In 14/27 (52%)- no difference.  In 2/27 (7%)- prison sanctions reduced reoffending.  Short confinement is not worse than community sanctions.  Few studies compare community vs prison sanctions.
    • Sentencing Principles Punish Rehabilitate Incapacitate/ Deter
    • Sentencing Principles Rehabilitate Incapacitate/ Deter
    • Incapacitate Offenders are incapable of offending again for a set period of time, for community protection and crime prevention (Ashworth, 2006)
    • Deter Deterrence Future levels of offending being reduced by fear of the consequences, instilled in both the individual offender and the general community. (Ashworth, 2006)
    • Campbell Collaboration: Offender Rehabilitation Boot Camp 43 studies of 120,000 adults and juveniles (Wilson, MacKenzie & Mitchell, 2008): The effect of boot camp- physical exercise/military drill & ceremony/strict discipline- on reducing re-offending. Overall, no impact on re-offending. Boot camp is neither as bad as critics say nor as good as advocates say. But the ‘military’ component is ineffective. Boot camps no worse than imprisonment.
    • Campbell Collaboration: Offender Rehabilitation Electronic Monitoring Meta-analysis (Taylor & Ariel underway at 2012):  To assess the effect of EM on recidivism and according to offender types.  Renzema & Mayo-Wilson (2005) conducted a systemic review: The available evidence up to 2002 was too limited to draw conclusions about the efficacy of EM.
    • Sentencing Principles Rehabilitate Incapacitate/ Deter
    • Sentencing Principles Rehabilitate
    • Offender Rehabilitation Identifies causes for offending and reduces reoffending by changing thoughts, feelings, and behaviours (ie, cognitivebehavioural therapy) (Ashworth, 2006)
    • Offender Rehabilitation How many of you would take aspirin to reduce the likelihood of a heart attack?
    • Offender Rehabilitation Effect Size Comparative effects sizes for selected interventions Intervention Target Aspirin Risk of myocardial infarction Chemotherapy Breast cancer Bypass surgery Coronary heart disease 0.15 AZT HIV/AIDS 0.23 Psych therapy Mental health problems 0.32 Tx of offenders Recidivism: overall 0.10 Recidivism: appropriate service 0.29 James McGuire- UK Effect size 0.034 0.08 - 0.11
    • Campbell Rehabilitation Offender Collaboration: Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy Meta-analysis of 58 studies in US/UK/Aust/ Canada (Lipsey, Landenberger, & Wilson, 2007): Recidivism reduced by 25% Recidivism reduced by 52% in more effective programs: -Higher offender risk level -Good CBT implementation -Include anger control and problem solving -Exclude victim impact and behaviour modification No difference in different ‘brands’ of CBT programs Re-offending rates same whether treated in prison or community Only 6/58 (10%) studies were ‘real world’
    • Campbell Collaboration: Offender Rehabilitation Sex Offender Treatment Meta-analysis (Lösel & Schmucker, underway at 2009): The effectiveness of treatment and management on sex offenders. Schmucker & Lösel (2009)- published a systematic review: -Majority of studies showed +ve results -Recidivism rates- treated offenders (11%) vs untreated (18%) = 37% difference -Findings for violent and general re-offending the same -+ve effects- CBT, behavioural approaches, hormone medication, surgical castration
    • Offender Rehabilitation Rigorous evaluations across several countries over 35 yrs = 291 studies: □ CBT- 25 studies = reduced re-offending (8.2%) □ Practical programs- 30 studies = modest reduction:- employment training in the community (4.8%) - basic adult education in prison (5.1%) - correctional industries in prison (7.8%) - vocational education in prison (12.6%). □ Requiring further research = 17 studies: - case management for drug-related offenders in the community (zero) regular supervision vs no parole supervision (zero) works release programs (5.6%) (Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006)  Small effect sizes can be effective in practice; even a 5% reduction in high risk offenders can be
    • Campbell Collaboration: Cost Effectiveness: Sentencing Only 9 studies, and 6 provided valid cost-benefit analysis: □ Prison sex offender treatment x 2 = cost beneficial  Diversion from prison into drug treatment x 1 = cost beneficial  Imprisonment for high risk offenders x 1 = cost beneficial, but not for lower risk or drug offenders  Intensive supervision program x 1 = cost beneficial but less supported by other research  Youth wilderness program x 1 = cost beneficial but less supported by other research (McDougall, Cohen, Swaray & Perry, 2008)
    • Campbell Collaboration: Cost Effectiveness: Sentencing Only 9 studies, and 3 provided partially valid costbenefit analysis: □ Effectiveness of prison vs probation  Released on parole vs full term  House arrest with electronic monitoring (McDougall et al, 2008)
    • Offender Rehabilitation What is offender rehabilitation?
    • COMMUNITY PROTECTION Offender Rehabilitation RISK-NEED-RESPONSIVITY Justice Principles = Manage Risk
    • Theory 1: Risk-Need-Responsivity  The work of Andrews, Bonta and Gendreau (Canada)  Psychology of Criminal Conduct  Offenders at higher risk of reoffending require more intensive treatment.  Low risk offenders do not require treatment. Emphasises risk management = empirical approach
    • Risk (Who)
    • Dynamic Risk Factors The BIG 4: 1. Antisocial 2. Antisocial 3. Antisocial 4. Antisocial attitudes peers behaviour personality 5. Family/marital problems 6. School/work problems 7. Leisure problems 8. Substance abuse  The CENTRAL 8 Non-Criminogenic Needs • Self esteem • Vague feelings of emotional discomfort (anxiety, alienated) • Major mental illness • History of victimisation • Lack of ambition • Fear of official punishment • Lack of physical activity (boot camp) Andrews & Bonta (2010)
    • Risk-Need-Responsivity Evidence Ethics 1. It works! 2. But is it the right thing to do?
    • RNR misses the organisational context, the therapeutic alliance and offender autonomy If you think I am being too harsh…. “Birgden (2004) opened Andrews’ eyes to our inattention to respect for personal autonomy as a basic value underlying our psychology of criminal conduct and the RNR approach. That will be corrected in the 5th edition of Andrews and Bonta [and] making human rights as part of a model of offender rehabilitation is a very attractive idea”. (Andrews & Dowden, 2009, p. 119)
    • COMMUNITY PROTECTION Offender Rehabilitation RNR Justice Principles = Manage Risk Good Lives Model Therapeutic Principles = Meet Needs
    • Theory 2: Good Lives Model  The work of Ward & Stewart (NZ/Aust)  Psychological theory = emphasises human need and well-being  Supplements RNR (not just about risk management or relapse prevention)  Ways of living that are beneficial and fulfilling to the individual- to meet physical, social and psychological needs Emphasises increased wellbeing + capabilities = humanistic approach
    • Good Lives Model cont  A theory that explains why a person may offend.  Concerned with treatment readiness and motivation- if you just manage risk, you don’t engage the person to change.  The primary objective is to develop a prosocial life (managing risk is secondary).  A “good life” is defined by the offender.  Offenders are fellow human travellersthey are no different from non-offenders, they are not “the other” (whatever moral entrepreneurs may say).
    • Good Lives Model • Individuals offend to meet basic human needs. • So, ask: What needs is the person meeting through offending? • Then, provide them with the skills and social supports to meet human needs in socially acceptable and personally meaningful ways. • A strength-based approach: Not “avoid kids when shopping” but “talk to adults when shopping”. Ward & Stewart (2003)
    • Healthy functioning Being safe Family & social supports Meaningful work & education Leisure activities Choices Intimate r’ships Competence & mastery
    • Good Lives Model Ethics Evidence 1. It is the right thing to do! 2. But does it work?
    • COMMUNITY PROTECTION Offender Rehabilitation RNR Justice Principles Manage Risk GLM Therapeutic Principles Meet Need THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE Justice Principles + Therapeutic Principles Manage Risk + Meet Need
    • Theory 3: Therapeutic Jurisprudence  The work of Wexler & Winick (US)  Legal theory = concern for psychological well-being of individuals affected by the law  Uses social science knowledge to determine ways in which the law can enhance psychological well-being  Focus on the law, legal procedures and (psycho)legal roles Emphasises increased well-being = humanstic approach
    • TJ The Law Legal Legal Procedures Roles Negative Effect ✗ ✗ ✗ Neutral Effect ✔ ✔ ✔ Positive Effect ✪ ✪ ✪
    • 7 Principles (TJ + GLM) Offender rehabilitation: 1. Is impacted by the law. 2. Should meet human needs. 3. Should support autonomous decisionmaking in offenders. 4. Needs to be individualised. 5. Is a multi-disciplinary and multi-agency endeavour. 6. Is normative- IT IS NOT VALUE-FREE! 7. Requires an offender-community balance. Birgden (2002)
    • COMMUNITY PROTECTION IS NOT…. Community Protection vs Offender Rights
    • COMMUNITY PROTECTION IS …. Community Rights + Offender Rights
    • Offender as…. Rights-Violator and Rights-Holder
    • What are “offender rights”? (Ward & Birgden, 2007) 1. Legal Right Prescribed by particular laws (ie, domestic & international laws) 2. Social Right Guaranteed by a social institution (eg, a prison) 3. Moral Right Based on a moral theory or principle…..
    • POLICIES OBJECTS Personal Security Personal Freedom Autonomy Social Recognition v Material Subsistence Equality Ward & Birgden (2007) Well-Being
    • Offender as Rights-Violator The State is to provide offenders with the same goods (to meet human needs) necessary for a life of dignity as it provides to non-offenders. That is… Only temporarily curtail rights if required for safe/secure/humane service delivery. Ward & Birgden (2007)
    • Offender as Rights-Holder Moral entrepreneurs assume that offenders forfeit human rights--outside of the protective zone of human rights policies. But… 1. The State is obliged to ensure rights. 2. The rights of non-offenders should not outweigh the rights of offenders (eg, access to treatment should be community standard) 3. Community rights should not outweigh offender rights.
    • ENHANCED COMMUNITY PROTECTION Offender Rehabilitation Human Rights = Values Stance RNR Community Rights Justice Principles Rights Violator GLM Offender Rights Therapeutic Principles Rights Holder TJ Community Rights + Offender Rights Justice Principles + Therapeutic Principles Rights Violator + Rights Holder
    • Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Centre Act (2004) 4 Objectives 1. Provide a comprehensive program of compulsory treatment & rehabilitation under judicial supervision. 2. Treat drug dependency, eliminate drug use while in the program, and reduce likelihood of relapse on release. 3. Prevent and reduce crime in relation to drug dependency. 4. Promote reintegration into the community.
    • Why Different? Unique Legislation Only Act of its kind in Australia (if not internationally) Fishbowl Interagency partnership and reports to Ministers x 3 (sometimes 4) Model of Treatment Drug use + offending behaviour
    • CDTCC Participants (N=106 @ 2010)  Average age 29 years.  Heroin (71%), amphetamines (13%), “ice”/ benzodiazepines/cannabis/cocaine/alcohol (2-5%) = polydrug use.  IV (83%), smoking (12%), oral (5%).  10% additional psychiatric diagnosis.  81% attempted drug treatment previously.  16% previous custodial sentence.  24% apprehended domestic violence orders.  Aboriginal participants 14/52 = 27% (generally 15-30%).
    • NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics & Research (BOCSAR) (Dekker, O’Brien & Smith, 2010) Independent evaluation of: 1. 2. 3. Participant health and social functioning. Participant drug use. Participant perceptions of the CDTCC. N of interviews Baseline interview- 95 End Stage 1 interview only- 74 End Stages 1 + 2 interviews- 38 End Stages 1 + 2 + 3 interviews- 13  Final Report to NSW Parliament in 2010.  We obtained 4 more years of funding (to 2014)
    • BOCSAR EVALUATION cont     Majority were "sure" they wanted to attend the Program and that the Program would be helpful. 96% understood what was expected of them. 100% agreed that being drug-free was an important aspect of the Program. Only 4% in Stage 1 and 0% in Stage 2 felt that they would prefer mainstream gaol.
    • BOCSAR EVALUATION cont By the end of Stage 2 (N = 38):  100% liked getting help for drug problem + being drug-free + access to training & education.  95% liked being abstinent. • 97% liked being in a drug-free gaol. By end of Stage 3 (N =13):  100% said Program had changed their life- drug-free + improved problem-solving skills + selfawareness and decision-making + sorting out finances, housing and supports.
    • BOCSAR EVALUATION  Significant improvement in physical and mental well-being  Initial emotional reaction to Order reduced significantly  Treatment readiness increased  Participant perceptions improved  Lowered perceived coercion scores  Higher therapeutic alliance- with all therapy staff and some custodial staff  84% considered that they had volunteered to enter a compulsory program!
    • Drug Test Results At Oct 2009 15,000 tests = < 2% illicit use At May 2013 40,200 tests = < 2% illicit use In comparison to… NSW Corrective Services = 6% SA Corrective Services (2012-13) = 20% (Media Report, 29/9/13)
    • The Helping Hand
    • Engagement Strategies Evidence-Based Ethical 1. Natural Justice 2. Rewards and Sanctions 3. Making Choices 4. Motivational Interactions
    • Community Protection REDUCED RE-OFFENDING
    • On balance Offenders need to be treated as human beings who are legitimately part of the moral community, emphasising community inclusion through support rather than social exclusion through incapacitation. Birgden & Cucolo (2010) ► Or as “Neil” on 7-up/56-up said: “I’m not standing up for legal rights, but the right to be human”.
    • The best argument for observing human rights standards is not merely that they are required by international or domestic law but that they actually work better than any known alternative- for offenders, for correctional staff, and for society at large. Compliance with human rights obligations increases, though it does not guarantee, the odds of releasing a more responsible citizen. In essence, a prison environment respectful of human rights is conducive to positive change, whereas an environment of abuse, disrespect, and discrimination has the opposite effect: Treating prisoners with humanity actually enhances public safety. Moreover, through respecting the human rights of prisoners, society conveys a strong message that everyone, regardless of their circumstance, race, social status, gender, religion, and so on, is to be treated with inherent respect and dignity (Zinger, 2006, p. 127)