By David Riley, Director of Corrections’ Psychological Services
The burgeoning imprisonment rate, particularly in North America, has focused increased attention on correctional practices. This in turn has been reflected in large numbers of research initiatives which have investigated the relationship between various forms of intervention and downstream recidivism. Increasingly, reviews of this research have used the statistical technique of meta-analysis, which allows for the encoding of the results of a large number of investigations onto a database. The results can then be analysed to answer critical questions, not only as to whether interventions work in a general sense, but also what characteristics of the intervention and the offender population may be associated with the best outcomes.
A just published paper¹ by two leading authorities in this area reviews the large number of reviews of correctional practice which have appeared in the literature over the last 20 years, and as such represents the most comprehensive overview of the area currently available.
In addition to shedding light on those approaches which are most productive, this paper provides a richness of information on what doesn’t work, and in so doing dispels a number of popular misconceptions.
Most significantly, a series of meta-analyses (totalling 19 in all) attest to the limited role which sanctions have on recidivism.
A series of reviews which are focused on the effects of probation and parole supervision compared with no supervision or more intensive supervision have found modest favourable effects which range from 2 per cent to 8 per cent reductions in recidivism.
No support was found in the reviews for the prison visitation approach with juveniles – often referred to as ‘scared straight’. Such programmes, although intuitively appealing and having been featured in several television documentaries, are considered by the authors to be an “intervention on average (which) is more harmful to juveniles than doing nothing”. In fact, some studies appeared to indicate that increases produced by these programmes were substantial.
Another punitive sanction which appears to be finding support in some states, the ‘boot camp’ approach emphasising hard work, discipline and privation, also appeared to have little overall effect on either juveniles or adults, with one reviewer finding a mean increase in recidivism following exposure to that sanction for juvenile offenders.
One of the most significant findings of the review was in relation to those studies which summarised evaluations of the impact of imprisonment. None of these reviews found reductions in recidivism for correctional confinement. Those studies which evaluated the impact of incarceration compared with community supervision or extended prison terms compared with shorter sentences, all found that the average effects were for increased recidivism to be associated with the more severe sanctions.
The authors summarise this part of their review as follows: “In sum, research does not show that the aversive experience of receiving correctional sanctions greatly inhibits subsequent criminal behaviour… a significant portion of the evidence points in the opposite direction”.
¹ Lipsey M.C., and Cullen F.T. (2007). The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation. A Review of Systematic Reviews, Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences
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