Evaluation of the addressing substance-related offending (ASRO) program for substance-using offenders in the community: a reconviction analysis

Are risk-need-responsivity principles golden? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of community correction programs

Objectives

Using meta-analysis to determine the effect size of the recidivism rate of participants in community correction programs that are conducted entirely in community settings.

Methods

Following the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), 25 qualified studies contributed 35 independent effect sizes.

Results

Full participation in a program significantly reduced the recidivism rate. Participant age was a significant moderator of heterogeneity. Those aged over 18 have lower recidivism rates. Interventions that fully follow the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) design principles achieved similar results to those that did not. Recidivism rates increase more than 12 months after the program ends.

Conclusions

The effectiveness of community correctional programs varies depending on the participant's age. The RNR principles are not golden. The above factors should be carefully considered when conducting intervention design in the future. Results should be interpreted with caution due to the literature's high heterogeneity and low quality.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11292-022-09550-w.

Estimating a treatment effect on recidivism for correctional multiple component treatment for people in prison with an alcohol use disorder in England

Background

There is an emerging literature on the impact of correctional substance abuse treatment (SAT) on reoffending for people in prison with substance misuse issues. This study estimates a pathway effect for people in prison receiving multiple component treatments for an alcohol use disorder (AUD) to reduce reoffending by applying treatment effect estimation techniques for observational studies. Treatment groups comprised pharmacological treatments, psychosocial interventions (PSIs) and interventions that incorporate Risk Need Responsivity (RNR) programming. RNR compliant treatment matches treatment dose to the risk of reoffending, targets criminogenic need and is tailored to a person’s learning style.

Methods

Multiple treatment effect estimators are provided for people in prison diagnosed with an AUD in England when compared to a derived control group for: Pharmacological treatment only; RNR compliant treatment and PSIs.

Results

The outcomes for RNR compliant treatment suggest a lower recidivism rate compared to the control group. Pharmacological only treatment results in a statistically significant higher level of reoffending relative to the control group.

Conclusions

The creation of a universal system of ‘equivalence of care’ framed within a public health context in English correctional SAT may have had an unintended consequence of diluting approaches that reduce recidivism. There is an opportunity to develop an integrated, cross-disciplinary model for correctional SAT that unites public health and RNR compliant approaches.

Association between three different cognitive behavioral alcohol treatment programs and recidivism rates among male offenders: findings from the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioral therapy-based alcohol treatment programs have been widely used to break the link between alcohol and crime. While evidence exists on the connection between alcohol and crime, there is little data that demonstrate the effectiveness of different alcohol treatment programs in reducing criminal behavior. We tested whether male offenders who participate in alcohol treatment programs show lower rates of recidivism than a matched offender group who did not participate in an alcohol prevention program.

METHODS

This is an observational matched case-control study. Participants were 564 male offenders with an alcohol problem related to offending. Participants were assigned by the courts to 1 of 3 alcohol treatment programs (141 offenders per treatment): Low Intensity Alcohol Program (LIAP), Alcohol Specified Activity Requirement, and Addressing Substance-Related Offending. A fourth matched group (n = 141) was not assigned to a program and served as a control group. Survival analysis was used to calculate participants' charged and reconviction rates over 4 time periods (0 to 3, 4 to 6, 7 to 9, and 10 to 12 months after completion of program or order).

RESULTS

Offenders who did not participate in a program were more than twice as likely to be charged compared to offenders who participated in a program. Furthermore, offenders who did not participate in a program were over 2.5 times more likely to be reconvicted. Among the 3 alcohol treatment programs evaluated, the LIAP was the most cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Offenders enrolled in an alcohol treatment program showed a significant reduction in being charged with or reconvicted of a crime. With costs of keeping offenders in prison per year reaching close to £40,000 per offender per year (Mulheirn et al., 2010, www.smf.co.uk), assigning offenders to alcohol preventive programs-such as LIAP-are a promising way to reduce recidivism and reduce cost.