At the end of 2004, Clive Hollin and his associates from the Universities of Liverpool and Leicester published a retrospective analysis of the “Pathfinder Programmes”. Based on over 2,000 offenders, it is claimed to be “the single largest study of programme effectiveness in probation yet reported”. The conclusions from evaluation of a range of mainly cognitive skills programmes and substance abuse programmes were equivocal.
Despite an earlier reasonably well controlled study which appeared to show that the cognitive skills approach reduced moderate risk groups’ re-offending, this larger scale evaluation failed to confirm this.
In a recent article Merrington and Stanley 1 levelled some methodological criticisms at this research, noting that while the study was limited to investigating the impact of programmes on reconviction, it was unable to say why, or for whom, programmes were effective.
The main findings were that there appeared to be a higher reconviction rate in the treated group than in the comparison group; only a third of the treated group actually completed the programme; when the treated group were divided into completers and non-completers, the completers were less likely to be reconvicted; and there was mixed evidence as to whether offenders in the medium risk group achieved better than those in the low or the high risk groups.
The authors critically examined these results in terms of best practice research methodology and quite correctly concluded there were weaknesses. Most important of these was that while the treated and untreated group were matched on basic criminal history and demographic variables, it was impossible to assume equivalence on all variables and critical issues such as motivation to change and underlying personality variables. The impact these may have had on the results remains unknown.
The authors also note other problematic aspects of the investigation, including the absence of a standard follow-up time period and the possible impact of only using re-conviction as an outcome measure.
Despite potential methodological shortcomings, these results are disappointing. This is especially the case given the earlier positive outcome when this approach was piloted prior to its wide scale implementation.
One possible inference which may be drawn from these results is that the large scale implementation of initiatives in the correctional setting may be impacted by factors related to integrity of programme delivery once the tightly constrained conditions of a pilot programme are relaxed, together with a likely lessening of the quality and quantity of supervision which typically support such pilot initiatives.
1 Merrington S. & Stanley S. (2005), Probation Journal, 52, pages 289-92.
Got a story for Corrections News or want to request the print edition?
Email commdesk@corrections.govt.nz or phone (04) 460 3365.
ISSN 1178-8453