A REVIEW OF IMPRISONMENT AND DETERRENCE PROGRAMMES AS A STRATEGY TO REDUCE PRISON POPULATIONS

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Non-criminogenic needs

According to Taxman and Thanner (2006:47-48), variables that are significant but not related to recidivism, yet require intervention, are deemed non-criminogenic needs (i.e. housing, poverty, mental health, spirituality, attitudes and values). Providing services to offenders’ in areas that may improve their overall life circumstances (e.g. providing education, health services and clothing) is valid for ethical and humanitarian reasons. The expectation that addressing these needs will reduce criminal behaviour is not scientifically sound. The reason is that research has not yet established a statistical relationship between these variables and the criterion of interest (rearrest or recidivism). The assessment of the presence of these needs should be as to whether the conditions are persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems that propel the offender to commit crime.
Other examples of non-criminogenic needs are anxiety and self-esteem. Decreasing anxiety or increasing self-esteem is unlikely to impact future criminal behaviour. Addressing these non-criminogenic needs may make offenders feel better but will have no effect on reducing their risk of recidivism. Although non-criminogenic needs might have no significant impact on recidivism, they might still be appropriate targets with responsivity issues (Andrews & Bonta, 1994). Thus, the behaviours and needs that should be targeted are those that are most predictive of future criminal behaviour and that are dynamic in nature.
What is clear is that some approaches to treatment are better than others. Researchers emphasise that effective treatment programmes must follow some basic principles. The first step in informed treatment planning is to assess offenders on a validated risk assessment instrument, which measures both static risk factors as well as a wide range of criminogenic and dynamic risk factors. A risk assessment does not only indicate the offender’s risk level, but also which criminogenic needs must be addressed in order to reduce the offender’s risk of eoffending. More recently, the terminology has changed with criminogenic risks being referred to as static (unchangeable) factors, and criminogenic needs as dynamic factors, which can be modified by treatment programmes. The third-generation risk assessment is distinctive because it purports to objectively and systematically measure criminogenic risk and criminogenic need factors (Andrews et al., 1990; Grendreau & Ross, 1979, 1987).

Dynamic risk factors

Andrews (1989:5-6) argues that “improving the accuracy of predicting risks is contingent upon a determination of the characteristics of offenders and their circumstances that are subject to change during the sentence, and establishing which of those changes actually indicate an increased or a reduced chance of recidivism”. This knowledge, Andrews contends, requires researchers and practitioners to look beyond static (unchangeable) risk factors, such as criminal history, to changeable dynamic factors, or criminogenic need factors. For instance, an actuarial risk prediction tool may measure number of prior convictions, age at the time of the offence and the offender’s relationship to the victim, all static factors, in addition to dynamic factors such as response to treatment and criminal association.
Dynamic risk factors are those that measure change in the offender (such as attitudes and values, companions and social achievement), and assist in the successful prediction of recidivism. Bonta (1997), Gendreau, Cullen and Bonta (1994), Taxman and Thanner (2006) and other researchers indicate that the most useful dynamic risk factors are those that are amenable to deliberate interventions and those that are predictive of the individual’s future criminal activities (criminogenic) such as antisocial attitudes and behaviour (i.e. bad family relationships, anger responses, hostility, substance abuse and employment problems).
The most robust and significant dynamic predictors are criminal attitudes, antisocial personality and companions. Dynamic factors associated with general recidivism include antisocial personality, social achievement, interpersonal conflict and substance abuse (Gendreau, Little & Goggin, 1996:8). Motiuk and Porporino’s research (1989) identified four primary need factors that significantly differentiate between failure and success on conditional release, namely living arrangements, companions, substance usage and attitude. For offender programmes to be effective, therefore, the needs that must be targeted are those that are directly linked to continued criminal behaviour.
Dynamic factors have been found to predict recidivism as well as, or better than, static factors (Gendreau, Little & Goggin, 1996) and are also measured by several actuarial risk assessment tools. Hanson and Bussière (1996a) postulate that it is knowledge of dynamic factors that is necessary in order to assess changes in an offender’s risk level. Through participation in rehabilitation programmes, an offender may become less likely to recidivate, but correctional practitioners would not be able to measure this change unless they assessed the offender’s risk based on dynamic factors.
Taxman and Thanner (2006:48) caution that more attention may be needed to consider specific characteristics of dynamic risk and need factors. Table 4.2 illustrates operational measures of how to use risk and need factors to measure dynamic factors. In addition, the utility of an individual factor may actually depend on whether that factor is, in fact, a hindrance for an individual or an attribute (protective or resilient).

Offender responsivity characteristics

The majority of people working in corrections are all too aware of the fact that most offenders entering treatment programmes are not motivated, are resistant to treatment and have multiple treatment needs. Offenders often do not recognise or may even completely deny that they have problems they need to address. Some offenders show a strong resistance to changing their high-risk leisure behaviours, long-term peer associations, antisocial sentiments, attitudes to work, and so on. An immediate goal would be to persuade offenders that treatment may help and to attempt to build offenders’ motivation to change. Persuading a reluctant offender to change long-standing values, commitments, lifestyles and psychological defences, however, may be an almost impossible task.
Similarly, different offenders have different learning styles. Some learn best by listening, others by reading, graphic or comic presentations, while others prefer learning by direct experience, group work, etc.
Certain offender personality characteristics and traits are important responsivity considerations in treatment planning. Personality traits such as psychopathy, interpersonal anxiety, depression and self-esteem will affect how responsive an offender is to a treatment intervention. For example, research indicates that female offenders score significantly lower than male offenders on measures of self-esteem and self-efficacy (McMurran, Tyler, Hogue, Cooper, Dunseath, & McDaid, 1998).
Personality and temperamental factors such as grandiosity, callousness, impulsivity, anger problems, egocentrism, poor problem-solving skills and poor social skills are all potential responsivity factors to consider, because they can affect an offender’s willingness or ability to engage in treatment programmes. Attitudinal characteristics that should be assessed include antisocial attitudes, values and beliefs, techniques of neutralisation, attitudes toward victim and pro-criminal associates, and isolation from anti-criminal others (Kennedy, 1999).

READ A fast and low temperature preparation method of ZnO films for PSC applications

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
INTRODUCTION
THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF PRISON AND PENAL REFORM
THE PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY BEHIND TRANSFORMATION
Corporate culture and management philosophy
Interrelationship between components
THE BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
The rationale for this research
The problem statement
Purpose and objectives of the study
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
Value for academia
Value for correctional practitioners
Value for role players in the criminal justice system
Value for the broader community
RESEARCH APPROACH
The researcher’s role
Data collection strategies
The literature search strategy
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Research design
The design and construction of the questionnaire
Pre-testing the questionnaire
Sampling procedure
Administration of the survey
Processing and presentation of data
Validity and reliability
Ethical considerations
Limitations of the study
TECHNICAL ASPECTS
Use of headings
Tables and charts
Technical care
Reference method
General
DEFINITION OF KEY CONCEPTS
SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTERS
PART A: THE NEED FOR PRISON AND PENAL REFORM
CHAPTER 2 A REVIEW OF IMPRISONMENT AND DETERRENCE PROGRAMMES AS A STRATEGY TO REDUCE PRISON POPULATIONS
INTRODUCTION
WORLD PRISON POPULATIONS
MANAGING PRISON POPULATION GROWTH
Factors influencing the size of the prison population
Crime rates
Awaiting-trial inmate
Imprisonment rates
Short-term imprisonment
Long-term imprisonment
Sentencing practices
Offender population profiles
CONSEQUENCES OF OVERCROWDING
Influence on prison administratio
STRATEGIES TO REDUCE PRISON POPULATIONS
Prison design
Alternatives to imprisonment
Countermeasures by police and courts
THE IMPACT OF IMPRISONMENT ON RECIDIVISM
The effects of gradual release from prison
THE IMPACT OF DETERRENCE STRATEGIES ON CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR
Monetary penalties
Shock probation
Scared Straight programmes
Boot camps
CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3 THE IMPACT OF COMMUNITY-BASED SENTENCES AND RESTRAINTS ON OFFENDER BEHAVIOUR
INTRODUCTION
THE RATIONALE FOR COMMUNITY-BASED SENTENCES
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNITY-BASED SENTENCES
THE COST OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
THE IMPACT OF COMMUNITY-BASED SENTENCES ON RECIDIVISM
Community service orders
Probation versus imprisonment
THE IMPACT OF COMMUNITY RESTRAINTS ON OFFENDER BEHAVIOUR
Intensive supervision programmes
Home confinement and electronic monitoring
Home confinement
Electronic monitoring
Halfway houses
Day reporting centres
Periodical imprisonment
THE IMPACT OF CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMMES ON RECIDIVISM
CONCLUSION
PART B: THE IMPACT OF CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMMES
ON OFFENDER BEHAVIOUR
CHAPTER 4 THE PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE OFFENDER ASSESSMENT AND CLASSIFICATION TOOLS
INTRODUCTION
THE RATIONALE FOR OFFENDER ASSESSMENT AND CLASSIFICATION
The purpose of risk assessments
The purpose of needs assessments
THE EVOLUTION OF OFFENDER ASSESSMENT AND CLASSIFICATION TOOLS
First-generation risk assessments (clinical model)
Second-generation risk assessments (actuarial or statistical model)
Third-generation risk assessments (the risk and need principle)
The risk principle
The need principl
Criminogenic needs
Non-criminogenic needs
Dynamic risk factor
Fourth-generation risk assessments (the responsivity principle)
Offender responsivity characteristics
PROFESSIONAL DISCRETION AND PROGRAMME INTEGRITY
The principle of professional discretion (override)
The principle of programme integrity
THE DEVELOPMENT OF ASSESSMENT TOOLS
The second-generation risk assessment tools
Salient Factor Score
Statistical Inventory on Recidivism (SIR)
The third-generation assessment tools
The Wisconsin tool
The Community Risk/Needs Management Scale
The Level of Supervision Inventory
Fourth-generation assessment tools
A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF OFFENDER ASSESSMENT AND CLASSIFICATION METHODS
Clinical versus actuarial assessments
Current approaches to classification and matching of treatment programmes
Problems in applying risk assessment tools
CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5 THE IMPACT OF REHABILITATION ON OFFENDER BEHAVIOUR
CHAPTER 6 THE IMPACT OF CORRECTIONS-BASED EDUCATION AND WORK PROGRAMMES ON OFFENDER BEHAVIOUR
CHAPTER 7 A PROFILE OF THE OFFENDER POPULATION AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ENVIRONMENT
CHAPTER 8 A NEEDS AND RISK ASSESSMENT OF THE SWAZILAND INMATE POPULATION
CHAPTER 9 RÉSUMÉ