Offender Change in Treatment Research Paper

This sample Offender Change in Treatment Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need help writing your assignment, please use our research paper writing service and buy a paper on any topic at affordable price. Also check our tips on how to write a research paper, see the lists of criminal justice research paper topics, and browse research paper examples.

This research paper looks at evidence that offenders change while attending correctional treatment programs. Surprisingly few research studies can demonstrate how offenders successfully change within correctional treatment programs. The typical research design involves using questionnaires at the beginning of a program, then repeating the same questionnaires with the same offenders once they complete the program. Although there are hundreds of studies examining pre-post-treatment change in offenders, there are fewer than 25 studies that explicitly test whether intra-individual changes (i.e., changes within the same individual between pre and post-program assessments on knowledge and attitudes) are related to recidivism outcome. Current research is limited when attempting to describe what makes programs effective, especially in terms of the specific constructs to be measured and what methods should be used (i.e., self-report questionnaires, behavioral ratings).

Context

This research paper first reviews two areas of research that provide compelling reasons that change is possible in some offenders. Based on this evidence, it is important to attempt to understand change within an individual, and to determine what processes help individuals give up crime. Simply knowing that some offenders succeed after program completion is not enough; it is necessary to understand the factors and processes that contribute to their success.

Second, this research paper describes the small body of studies that have examined what changes at the individual level when offenders are successful. Specifically, these studies have examined individual offenders’ changes on relevant constructs (e.g., antisocial cognitions, impulsivity, and anger) and the relationship between these changes and recidivism. These studies involve general offenders, substance misusing offenders, violent offenders, family violence offenders, and sexual offenders. When considering the many types of offenders in an area of limited research, it is challenging to make strong conclusions regarding which changes are most important within treatment programs. Still, across the studies reviewed below, changes in crime-supportive beliefs were consistently significantly related to reductions in recidivism, across a variety of types of offenders. In other words, offenders who changed their attitudes or perceptions about whether crime was a positive choice during program participation were most likely to stay crime-free after program completion. This finding suggests it is important to continue refining the knowledge regarding cognitive change that occurs during all types of correctional programming.

Finally, this research paper offers some considerations about how to best move forward in developing an empirical basis for understanding offender change, including how to best conceptualize and measure the change process.

Key Issues For Offender Change In Treatment

Do offenders change? Can this change be measured as it occurs?

Paying Attention To Change Has Crucial Practical Importance

There are many times in the correctional system that decisions must be made about individual offenders and indications of offender change are important for lessening of sanctions. For example, the timing of release may rest upon whether an offender made progress during incarceration, whether the offender appears ready to transition into the community, and whether the offender’s release plan shows positive potential versus unfavorable complications. Daily decisions within the correctional system require staff to predict success for individuals, but current research tells us very little about individual-level change and how it may be related to improved offender outcomes.

Research on rehabilitation programs has focused on the fundamental questions, such as what programs or approaches to treatment are most effective, or which offender subgroups are most receptive to treatment. This research has typically focused on issues of program fidelity (Lowenkamp et al. 2006) and attending to risk and need principles (Smith et al. 2009). Programs with higher integrity and that target higher-risk offenders and criminogenic needs yield greater effect sizes.

Nonetheless, not all offenders benefit equally, even from “good” programs. Questions remain regarding how offenders change within programs, or how unique offender characteristics and unique program characteristics together impact outcome (e.g., see Burrowes and Needs 2009; Ward et al. 2004).

In other words, rehabilitation programs would be enhanced if greater attention was paid to the treatment journey rather than just the intended destination.

Which Offenders Change?

Two areas of research support further investigation into individual-level mechanisms of change. The first area is desistance research, which uses a variety of qualitative and quantitative methodologies and samples, but is unified in its examination of crime across the life course. Desistance research has typically examined repeat offenders who have committed acquisitive crimes. Second, evaluations of correctional treatment programs, which are more narrow and specific in scope compared to desistance studies, show that even short in-prison interventions can have lasting impact on post-release behavior. These bodies of research give reason to be confident that some offenders can change, under the right circumstances.

Crime Decreases As Offenders Age

First, criminal behavior is unstable across the life course. On average, offenders increase their criminal activity to a peak during late adolescence and early adulthood and then decrease their crime frequency (i.e., an upside-down U called the age-crime curve; Blumstein and Cohen 1987). Despite variation in age of onset and cessation, it is normative for criminal activity to drift downward throughout early adulthood. For example, in a birth cohort followed to the age of 32, self-reported antisocial behavior decreased across time, with 70 % of those involved in antisocial behavior exhibiting considerably low rates or desistance by the age of 26 (Odgers et al. 2008).

Offenders who do not desist from crime are a problematic minority responsible for a majority of crimes, with each individual committing crime at high rates. This group is known as the persisters (Moffitt et al. 2002). This means not all offenders follow the same trajectory of change. The high-rate offenders with low likelihood of desistance are characterized by early life deficits and difficulties that are not as prevalent in sporadic or short-term offenders (Moffitt et al. 2002). At the later stages of a criminal career, offenders who experience particular life events are more likely to desist from crime. These life changes typically occur concurrently with changes in the offenders’ priorities, goals, commitments, and social circumstances. Some key life changes related to desistance include sustained marriage, long-term employment, and residential changes (Sampson and Laub 2005). It remains to be seen if these findings will be replicated with more contemporary samples.

Thus, research findings from a life course desistance perspective offer a macro-level understanding of the age-related changes that broadly influence the process of crime reduction within offenders. Some of this research additionally has assessed psychosocial constructs (e.g., selfcontrol) multiple times through the life course (Kazemian et al. 2009). A less demanding and more typical approach has involved measuring life events as turning points (i.e., marital status, job attainment). When researchers have investigated the internal processes, they conclude that individual-specific features such as romantic relationship quality and engagement in employment are vital aspects of this process (Sampson and Laub 1990). A unique body of studies taking a qualitative approach provides rich descriptions or narratives of ex-offenders’ perspectives on their processes of change (e.g., Maruna 2001). Together, the various approaches to life course desistance research support the conclusion that offenders entering adulthood who actively embrace major life changes begin to enact new patterns of behavior and adopt noncriminal identities.

Recidivism Rates Are Lower Among Groups Of Treated Offenders

The conclusion that appropriate approaches to psychosocial treatment reduce crime is now supported by upward of 40 meta-analyses (McGuire 2004). Although treatment programs and evaluations vary in quality, research overall concludes that offenders exposed to rehabilitation programs have a lower likelihood of returning to crime, on average, compared to offenders in a no-treatment control group.

Three particular features determine whether treatment has a crime-reducing effect. Andrews and Bonta (2010) specified who has potential to change, what characteristics are required to change, and the type of environment where change can occur. These principles have been referred to as risk/need/responsivity model, which is a guiding principle in offender programming (Andrews and Bonta 2010). Specifically, treatment can have a positive impact on higher-risk offenders, and lower-risk offenders may actually do worse if exposed to treatment with higher-risk offenders, hence only higher-risk offenders should be targeted for rehabilitation. Targeting higher-risk offenders is the who aspect of effective treatment.

Second, treatment programs are effective only when they focus on changing personal characteristics (i.e., criminogenic needs) known to be associated with criminal behavior. The characteristics most related to criminal behavior include impulsive personality, negative emotion, pro-offending attitudes, association with criminal friends, poor family relationships, inconsistent employment, poor use of leisure time, and misuse of substances. Targeting these crime-related characteristics is the what aspect of effective treatment.

Third, treatment programs where staff match the rehabilitation to the learning styles of the offenders (i.e., cognitive-behavioral approaches that consider offender readiness) are more effective than programs offered in an unstructured format where the learning goals are unspecified or poorly adapted to offenders. Offering well-structured, cognitive-behavioral programs is the where aspect of effective treatment.

Adherence to these core considerations results in the most effective treatment programs currently available (Smith et al. 2009). Beyond these arguably broad strokes, there are additional considerations that remain relatively unexamined, regarding how different offenders experience treatment and exhibit unique change processes. As a result, there is increasing interest in assessing readiness to change (Day et al. 2007) and more precise aspects of responsiveness to treatment (Ward et al. 2004) in order to augment program effectiveness.

An important limitation of this research is that it primarily examines groups (offenders in treatment vs. not in treatment) and group recidivism rates. It is still unclear from current research which particular offenders are engaging in treatment and receiving the most benefit from it. Although research indicates what characteristics should be targeted in programs, researchers rarely explicitly measure whether these characteristics have actually changed at the individual level, and confirmed these changes are related to recidivism outcome.

An Overview Of Within-Individual Change

The research on crime desistance and correctional programming discussed above complement each other, each using a unique vantage point to demonstrate that offenders decrease their criminal activity. In addition, both research areas provide theoretical frameworks for understanding the broad context of why this change occurs (e.g., aging, new engagement in conventional living, and increased knowledge and skills development). With a few exceptions, neither area of research has employed consistent measurement of within-individual variables across time. Notably, more specific examination of the mechanisms underlying how change occurs has been lacking.

Serin, Lloyd, Helmus, Derkzen, and Luong (2013) recently reviewed the available academic and government corrections research to compile the constructs (e.g., changes in pro-criminal attitudes, impulsivity, hostility) that show the most promise as mechanisms of intra-individual change and markers of success. The study identified 378 studies measuring change, but only 49 tests of the relationship between change scores and recidivism outcome at the individual level. It is striking that so few studies have examined within-individual change. These reviewers found 12 cognitive programs, three substance misuse programs, and two violence reduction programs that explicitly tested the association between intrapersonal change and recidivism. Of the 49 available tests for these 17 programs, 26 effect sizes (53.1 %) were significant, ranging from small (d ¼ 0.06) to large (d ¼ 1.48). Across all domains, change variables significantly related to recidivism included known dynamic risk factors: antisocial attitudes, antisocial beliefs, antisocial associates, antisocial personality, social support, and substance misuse. Although these studies varied in terms of program dosage, fidelity, and follow-up times, which would influence effect sizes, it is nonetheless important to begin to examine if certain constructs, when measured pre-and post-programming, are related to postprogram completion recidivism. Essentially this is the answer to which offenders change, if the change indices have demonstrated predictive validity. Other reviewers have similarly found few studies focusing on domestic violence and sex offenders.

General Offender Cognition

In these 12 programs noted above, offenders attended cognitive programs and self-reported (at least twice) regarding their beliefs about crime, whether others supported their efforts to stay crime-free, negative emotion, levels of stress, life problems, connection to criminal friends, and/or symptoms of psychological distress. Some of these measures were taken at the beginning and end of prison-based programs, whereas other programs took place after the offender was already released into the community. All of these studies are unique, however, because the researchers tested if within-person changes were related to recidivism, rather than only testing if the treatment group as a whole changed, on average. This is a more fine-tuned approach because one individual may change, whereas another individual may not change even though both attend the same program. For a full listing of the programs and measures, refer to Serin, Lloyd, Helmus, Derkzen, and Luong (2013).

Overall, within these studies, individual offenders who exhibited changes in their thinking about crime were also less likely to recidivate after release. Specifically, some of the largest effect sizes were observed for measures that assessed acceptance of responsibility for crime, rejection of criminal behavior as a suitable course of action, and disregard for the law. Individual offenders who adopted more prosocial, anticriminal ways of thinking during rehabilitation were more likely to stay crime-free.

Another set of findings highlight the importance of connection to others. In particular, offenders who reported a reduced feeling of connection to criminal friends were less likely to reoffend after release. Offenders who reported increased access to individuals who supported their decision to stay crime-free were also more likely to succeed. By contrast, offenders reporting increasing problems in their family environment were more likely to recidivate.

Finally, in one study (Brown et al. 2009), two large effects were observed for changes related to the reentry environment. Specifically, recidivism was related to increases in negative emotion (negative feeling about the world) and escalating problems with reintegration back into the community. Offenders who had increasing difficulty integrating back home after release and feeling increasingly negative emotions during their reentry process were more likely to re-offend. The opposite is also true, however, where offenders who were able to clear up practical problems post-release and feel less negative moods were more likely to succeed.

Together, these cumulative results demonstrate that those offenders who experience improving life circumstances involving connection to prosocial others are effectively on a path toward staying crime-free. Similarly, those who report perceiving less value in crime as a life choice also were more likely to desist. Notably, not all studies found similar effects of change when employing the same measures, reinforcing the view that program fidelity and other factors were not controlled. This suggests certain attitudes sometimes appear to drive the change process. Currently, there are too few studies to more fully understand the factors that might influence this differential effect. Since many cognitive factors are interrelated (i.e., bonds to prosocial others are likely to spark reductions in criminal attitudes Andrews and Bonta 2010), another possibility worth exploring is whether there are many paths to the same outcome. In other words, it may not be that one particular type of attitude must change for success, just that prosocial attitudes of some sort must develop within the offender.

Substance Misuse

Few (only three) studies explicitly examined change in variables among offenders with sub-stance misuse problems. Each of these studies examined different change factors, and each found change was directly related to reduction in recidivism. Among these, the largest effect size demonstrated that offenders who reduced their substance use during the time period shortly after release were more likely to stay crime-free in the community (Brown et al. 2009). Small effect sizes were found in the remaining two studies, demonstrating that reductions in psychiatric symptomology (e.g., anxiety, hostility, paranoia; Sullivan et al. 2008) and increases in perceived consequences of drug use were related to reductions in recidivism (Millson et al. 1995).

Further, the first study suggests individuals who become sober are less likely to commit further crime. In the latter two studies, it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding the importance of alleviation of distress symptoms and changes in drug beliefs because individuals’ substance use behaviors as they participated in treatment were not explicitly measured. It would have been a stronger approach to simultaneously measure changes in substance use, rather than only measuring change in psychological variables. Still, these studies reach a similar conclusion to the studies examining cognitive programs, namely, that reductions in negative emotion (hostility) and beliefs about crime (consequences of drug use) are mechanisms that can drive reductions in criminal activity.

Violence

Two findings emerged from two studies of change among nonsexual violent offenders (e.g., assault, armed robbery, murder). These studies found medium-to-large effect sizes for reductions in negative emotion (anger, specifically; Polaschek and Dixon 2001) and self-reported increases in personal insight about life problems (e.g., offense chain; Dowden et al. 1999). Reductions in anger were associated with a lower likelihood of nonviolent recidivism. Variables reflecting that offenders learned something about their risk factors during treatment were associated with lower likelihood of violent recidivism. However, given the limited amount of evidence available, these findings need replication.

In one attempt to replicate these findings, a recent study demonstrated that violent offenders who became actively invested in changing their problem behavior during a brief motivational intervention were less likely to commit a further offence (violent or nonviolent reconvictions; Anstiss et al. 2011). This supports the finding regarding knowledge of their offense chain, and suggests violent offenders who demonstrate more motivation to actively participate in rehabilitation are more likely to change.

From these three studies, it appears reducing anger among violent offenders can reduce recidivism, but a key mechanism of change also appears to involve increasing motivation to tackle life problems in a prosocial way. Thus, offenders who seem to connect with treatment and “get it” in terms of increased personal insight and drive to change their old patterns are less likely to reoffend. In particular, Anstiss and colleagues (2011) demonstrated that reductions in recidivism occurred as a result of a treatment focused on enhancing motivation (i.e., increasing readiness to change). In other words, simply addressing motivation without attention to other skills or variables appeared to be enough to influence violent offenders toward successful change, although again this requires replication.

Family Violence

In a review of treatment approaches, typologies, and change mechanisms in the area of family violence, Scott (2004) similarly concluded research is lacking about change processes. However, her review suggested that three variables show some evidence as potential change mechanisms and deserve further consideration: anger, psychiatric symptomology, and substance use.

Changes in psychological distress and anger were recently investigated among men courtordered to attend treatment for violence against their partners (Alexander and Morris 2008). Results showed that some men decreased their depression and anxiety during treatment, as well as increased control over their anger, but only if they reported being ready to make behavior changes at the beginning of treatment. Only a small number of romantic partners were contacted for follow-up (15 out of 210), but among this select group, men who changed during treatment (i.e., in terms of anger, depression) were less likely to inflict injury on their partner during the 6 months following treatment, compared to men who did not change. However, outcomes were only examined in terms of pretreatment scores, ignoring posttreatment and change scores. This is unfortunate given that other studies of high quality methodology are not available in the family violence treatment domain.

Research regarding change among perpetrators of family violence is particularly limited, but it is noteworthy that the limited findings are similar to those within other offender domains. Further research should attempt to replicate these results suggesting changes in negative emotion (anger) and psychological distress are important for reductions in family violence.

Sexual Offenders

Beggs (2010) recently reviewed treatment change among sexual offenders and found that recidivism was related to within-individual changes in assertiveness, empathy, anger, beliefs specifically related to offending against children (including sexual interest in children, loneliness), and general risk factors (including criminality, substance use, and treatment responsivity). In addition, Beggs and Grace (2011) demonstrated that reductions in sexual deviance, anger, and various cognitive and psychiatric symptom variables (including loneliness, intimacy, depression, and anxiety) were related to a lower likelihood of sexual recidivism. Notably, these treatment changes predicted reduced recidivism while accounting for static risk scores. By contrast, in a large sample of sexual offenders attending community treatment (Barnett et al. 2013), change was not explicitly associated with sexual and violent recidivism, but those offenders who remained in a low functioning range at the end of treatment on particular variables (including self-esteem, loneliness, assertiveness) were more likely to recidivate.

In a large sample of sexual offenders attending prison-based treatment (Wakeling et al. 2013), post-treatment scores appeared to be more important than change scores in predicting recidivism. Those who were displaying functional (i.e., higher) scores at the end of treatment reoffended the least. It is important to note, however, that some individuals displaying functional scores following treatment may not represent offenders who changed; some offenders were in the functional range at the beginning of treatment. When change scores were explicitly examined, changes in sexual interest and impulsivity were associated with lower likelihood of sexual and violent recidivism. However, this effect was not significant after accounting for static risk scores.

Summary

It is striking that across all types of offender programming reviewed, similar variables appeared to be important mechanisms of change across the different subtypes of offenders. In particular, positive in-program changes in negative emotion (e.g., anger or hostility) and offence-related cognitions (e.g., various pro-criminal beliefs) were most consistently related to post-program reductions in recidivism. Given the limited breadth of current investigations, it is difficult to discern if these variables are definitively the key drivers of the crime reduction process. At the same time, inconsistencies were observed across studies, as change in the same measure sometimes successfully, sometimes unsuccessfully predicted recidivism at the individual level.

Nonetheless, the variables identified in this research paper deserve greater attention. These include changes in negative emotion (hostility, anger, depression, and anxiety), beliefs about crime (interest in and positive evaluations of criminal activities), symptoms of distress, substance use, social support, and engagement in treatment. At this time, there is little consensus about the best questionnaires for assessing each of these variables, but research is likely to benefit from subtype-specific measurement. For example, the core beliefs that support violence are different from the beliefs that support illegal drug use or sexual offending.

Conceptual And Methodological Issues About Measuring Individual Change

Of course, paying attention to process does not come without financial and operational costs, because this involves incorporating a more holistic conceptualization of change, and more sophisticated research methodologies. Some of these considerations are highlighted below. First, from a conceptual viewpoint, a complete understanding of change requires looking more inclusively beyond the treatment environment itself. For example, it is important to consider not only whether change has occurred, but also to what degree this change occurs (i.e., mild improvement or complete “remission”?). It is also important to understand whether change is occurring in one progressive, linear stretch, or with piecemeal transitions, bursts, and starts. Second, each of these three conceptual concerns has implications for methodology. Researchers should measure offenders more than twice, measure events that occur before and after the treatment program, and explicitly test whether change is real or simply due to measurement error. Each of these conceptual and methodological considerations are described below.

Complementary Approaches To The Same Broad Process

Correctional treatment provides the most concrete framework from which to investigate intraindividual change. Yet, treatment exposure is arguably only one part of an individual’s journey of change. By merging macro-(desistance) and micro-level (treatment programs) investigations of change process, it is likely that reduced risk for recidivism involves both lifestyle changes and specific learning moments within rehabilitation programs. These processes are complementary and each contributes a piece to a complete change process. To date, these literatures exist in isolation, with limited effort to recognize that both can contribute to offender change.

Thus, depending on the study, it may be difficult to find treatment effects when other processes are at play, especially given that aging offenders experience additional forces outside of treatment that decrease their likelihood of future crime. Measuring changes in crime is particularly difficult because crime is a relatively rare event in an individual’s pattern of behavior and is not subject to small, incremental changes across time (unlike a behavior such as reduction in smoking cigarettes). These challenges suggest it would be productive to integrate research of broad life changes with research on treatment effects. A more holistic understanding of treatment change would attempt to link an offender’s pre-post changes to his or her past and current life circumstances.

From a desistance perspective, treatment should be considered just one component of a more extensive change process that is simultaneously occurring in the offender’s life (see also DiClemente 2007). Being too treatmentcentric limits researchers from discovering what life circumstances outside of the treatment program may have assisted clients to change (DiClemente 2007).

Recognizing change processes occurring outside of treatment does not discount the value of rehabilitation programs. Scores of research have confirmed that correctional programming can be an important turning point in certain offenders’ life courses. In addition, some of the changes reviewed throughout this research paper were the result of very brief, cost-effective programs, suggesting the need to investigate change both within and without the treatment environment.

To think about change processes in a holistic, interactive way requires extending current measurement strategies beyond only pre-post-treatment measurement. Additional thought needs to be put into integrating what is known about change outside of rehabilitation into questionnaires given during treatment studies. This will require expanding the range of variables examined and the range of life experiences assessed (i.e., how did a treatment episode impact future desistance during follow-up, and how did extra-treatment experiences affect the impact of the program for that individual?).

Reliable Change And Clinical Significance

To assess reliable change and clinical significance, researchers need measurement that is both precise (good psychometric properties) and meaningful (such that scores above the threshold are associated with reduced recidivism). Conceptually, this requires building knowledge about how to best define success at the end of a program, and methodologically, this requires researching quantitative cut-off scores. (See also Nunes et al. 2011, for an application of clinical significance to a study of sexual offenders).

It is difficult to know whether pre-post-treatment change is “real” or simply the result of measurement error. Jacobson and Truax (1991) argued that research should both determine which clients have changed and whether the change is sizable enough to have real-world impact on the individual’s life. In the context of this research paper, that means predicting desistance from crime. Jacobson and Truax’s (1991) reliable change index is a formula for calculating whether change during therapy is greater than what would be expected due to measurement error. In other words, if offenders typically score within a plus-or-minus five-point range on a scale across short time periods, an offender who improved by four points across treatment would not be predicted to desist, as change was not reliable. Thus, the reliable change index takes this measurement error into account, identifying only those whose scores represent “true” change.

Similarly, they recommend establishing a meaningful threshold score, or a cut-off that represents improvements strong enough to impact the individual’s outcome. Some individuals may change in treatment, but is this change enough to reduce their chances of recidivism? If so, the change is meaningful, and can be considered clinically significant change.

Identifying The Precise Timing Of Change

Although pre-post-treatment measurement is the most typical approach in correctional psychology, in other fields of psychological therapy, researchers measure participants at every treatment session. This allows researchers to pinpoint exactly when change occurred. Such an approach requires additional cost, time, and effort. If researchers seek to describe change by employing only two assessment periods (prepost-treatment design), they are at a disadvantage because they can only describe linear change (i.e., do offenders improve or deteriorate; Singer and Willett 2003). At least three assessment periods, but preferably more, are required to investigate non-gradual, curving processes of change (patterns of improvement and decline within the same individual). Such nonlinear change is described in desisters’ narratives (Maruna 2001) and is consistent with Stages of Change research (Prochaska et al. 1992). Adding more measurement periods allows researchers to describe the timing, patterns, maintenance, and potential causes of change.

For example, among male adolescents in a secure psychiatric treatment facility, change in traits over a 6-month period showed different patterns of development (Caldwell et al. 2012). Some traits showed little initial improvement during the first 3 months, but then substantial improvement over the latter 3 months, whereas other traits changed more steadily. The timing of change was only uncovered by including a mid-treatment assessment.

A small group of high-risk burglary offenders increased their readiness to change from the beginning to end of a brief five-session motivational interviewing treatment (Austin et al. 2011). For a smaller group of participants (n=12), self-report ratings were taken a third time (3–12 months later), and results indicated that change had been maintained following the brief treatment. Without the third assessment, the timing and sustainability of change would remain unknown.

Finally, Barrett and colleagues (2003) were able to describe complex patterns of change by employing four time periods, revealing that some variables evidenced curvilinear change. Variables representing different facets of motivation and treatment engagement were coded from files for 101 male sexual offenders who underwent two treatment programs, one in the institution, one in the community. For two variables, improvements were gained early and maintained into the community, whereas for three variables, gains made in the institution were lost after release into the community (an upside-down U-shaped distribution). Evidence also suggested that only change maintained into the community was related to reduced recidivism. This research also points to the possibility that the institutional program, but not the community program, was responsible for initially sparking the change.

Additional Considerations And Final Thoughts

In conclusion, although there are financial costs and operational challenges associated with investigating change in treatment outcome studies, spending these funds is also a strategic way to ensure that knowledge will be gained even from programs that are ultimately considered a nonsuccess. Limiting understanding only to whether programs “work” or not leads to blanket conclusions about discarding or keeping programs, but attending to process uncovers why programs positively or negatively influenced offenders. The research on correctional program fidelity, organizational readiness, and implementation (Lowenkamp et al. 2006) must also be incorporated into such an understanding, but with effect sizes less than 0.30 for even the best correctional programs, not all offenders benefit. Hence, knowing why a program did not work and how it failed to influence some offenders is a valuable way to recoup some costs associated with an unsuccessful program.

Despite the singular emphasis on investigating change processes in this research paper, it is important to note that fundamental considerations when researching treatment programs are still critically important, no matter how sophisticated the measurement of change within the study. Treatment change should not be studied without simultaneous attention to follow-up outcomes and control groups. A program cannot be labeled as successful without investigating if recidivism is actually reduced, and it cannot be concluded that the program was responsible for offenders’ success without a control group. Also, program dropout has implications for understanding the process of treatment. In particular, when multiple assessment periods are examined across the tenure of treatment, those who drop out early will be necessarily excluded from analyses. A measurement strategy that attempts to account for and explain dropout is part of understanding treatment processes.

Although attending to change within treatment is a challenging venture, it is a fruitful one. The causes, driving mechanisms, and conditions required for sustainable change are likely to be difficult to pin down, but a better understanding of these complex treatment dynamics will lead to enhanced correctional practice. Ultimately, advancing knowledge about process will allow building an appropriately complex model of offender change.

Bibliography:

Alexander PC, Morris E (2008) Stages of change in batterers and their response to treatment. Violence Vict 23:476–492. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.23.4.47
Andrews DA, Bonta J (2010) The psychology of criminal conduct, 5th edn. LexisNexis, New Providence
Anstiss B, Polaschek DLL, Wilson M (2011) A brief motivational interviewing intervention with prisoners: when you lead a horse to water, can it drink for itself? Psychol Crime Law. doi:10.1080/1068316090352432
Austin KP, Williams MWM, Kilgour G (2011) The effectiveness of motivational interviewing with offenders: an outcome evaluation. N Z J Psychol 40:55–67
Barnett GD, Wakeling H, Mandeville-Norden R, Rakestrow J (2013) Does change in psychometric test scores tell us anything about risk of reconviction in sexual offenders? Psychol Crime Law 19:85–110. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2011.607820
Barrett M, Wilson RJ, Long C (2003) Measuring motivation to change in sexual offenders from institutional intake to community treatment. Sex Abus J Res Treat 15:269–283. doi:10.1177/107906320301500404
Beggs SM (2010) Within-treatment outcome among sexual offenders: a review. Aggress Violent Behav 15:369–379. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2010.06.005
Beggs SM, Grace RC (2011) Treatment gain for sexual offenders against children predicts reduced recidivism: a comparative validity study. J Consult Clin Psychol 79:182–92. doi:10.1037/a0022900
Blumstein A, Cohen J (1987) Characterizing criminal careers. Science 237:985–991
Brown SL, St. Amand MD, Zamble E (2009) The dynamic prediction of criminal recidivism: a three-wave prospective study. Law Hum Behav 33:25–45. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9139-7
Burrowes N, Needs A (2009) Time to contemplate change? A framework for assessing readiness to change with offenders. Aggress Violent Behav 14:39–49. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2008.08.00
Caldwell MF, McCormick D, Wolfe J, Umstead D (2012) Treatment-related changes in psychopathy features and behavior in adolescent offenders. Crim Justice Behav 39:144–155. doi:10.1177/0093854811429542
Day A, Howells K, Casey S, Ward T, Birgden A (2007) Treatment readiness: an overview of Australasian work. Issues Forensic Psychol 7:21–25
DiClemente CC (2007) Mechanisms, determinants and processes of change in the modification of drinking behavior. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 31:13s–20s. doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2007.00489.x
Dowden C, Blanchette K, Serin RC (1999) Anger management programming for federal male inmate: an effective intervention. Research Report No. 82. Retrieved from Correctional Service of Canada website http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/ r106/r106_e.pdf
Jacobson NS, Truax P (1991) Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol 59:12–9
Kazemian L, Farrington DP, Le Blanc M (2009) Can we make accurate long-term predictions about patterns of de-escalation in offending behavior? J Youth Adolesc 38:384–400. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9338-z
Lowenkamp CT, Latessa EL, Smith P (2006) Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminol Public Policy 5:575–594. doi:10.1111/ j.1745-9133.2006.00388.x
Maruna S (2001) Making good: how ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. doi:10.1037/10430-00
McGuire J (2004) Understanding psychology and crime: perspectives on theory and action. Open University Press, New York
Millson WA, Weekes JR, Lightfoot LO (1995) The Offender Substance Abuse Pre-release Program: analysis of intermediate and post-release outcomes. Research Report No. 40. Retrieved from Correctional Services of Canada website http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/ text/rsrch/reports/r40/r40e_e.pdf
Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Harrington H, Milne BJ (2002) Males on the life-course persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways: follow-up at age 26. Dev Psychopathol 14:179–206
Nunes KL, Babchishin KM, Cortoni F (2011) Measuring treatment change in sex offenders: clinical and statistical significance. Crim Justice Behav 38:157–173. doi:10.1177/0093854810391054
Odgers CL, Moffitt TE, Broadbent JM, Dickson N, Hancox RJ, Harrington H, Caspi A (2008) Female and male antisocial trajectories: from childhood origins to adult outcomes. Dev Psychopathol 20:673–716. doi:10.1017/S095457940800033
Polaschek DLL, Dixon BG (2001) The violence prevention project: the development and evaluation of a treatment programme for violent offenders. Psychol Crime Law 7:1–23. doi:10.1080/10683160108401779
Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Norcross JC (1992) In search of how people change: applications to addictive behaviors. Am Psychol 47:1102–1114. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.47.9.1102
Sampson RJ, Laub JH (1990) Crime and deviance over the life course: the salience of adult social bonds. Am Sociol Rev 55:609–627. doi:10.2307/2095859
Sampson RJ, Laub JH (2005) A life-course view of the development of crime. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 602:12–45. doi:10.1177/000271620528007
Scott KL (2004) Predictors of change among male batterers: application of theories and review of empirical findings. Trauma Violence Abuse 5:260–284. doi:10.1177/1524838003264339
Serin RC, Lloyd CD, Helmus L, Derkzen D, Luong D (2013) Does intra-individual change predict offender recidivism? Searching for the Holy Grail in assessing offender change. Aggress Violent Behav 18:32–53
Singer JD, Willett JB (2003) Applied longitudinal data analysis: modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford University Press, New York
Smith P, Gendreau P, Swartz K (2009) Validating the principles of effective intervention: a systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Vict Offenders 4:148–169. doi:10.1080/15564880802612581
Sullivan CJ, Sacks S, McKendrick K, Banks S, Sacks JY, Stommel J (2008) Modified therapeutic community treatment for offenders with co-occurring disorders. J Offender Rehabil 45:227–247. doi:10.1300/ J076v45n01_1
Wakeling HC, Beech AR, Freemantle N (2013) Investigating treatment change and its relationship to recidivism in a sample of 3773 sex offenders in the UK. Psychol Crime Law 19:233–252. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2011.626413.
Ward T, Day A, Howells K, Birgden A (2004) The multifactor offender readiness model. Aggress Violent Behav 9:645–673. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2003.08.001