This is a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) of educational programmes delivered within prison. Included in this review are evaluations of vocational, academic, basic skills, accredited and unaccredited educational provision in prison where recidivism and/or employment were measured as outcomes. Initial searches returned 4,304 titles and abstracts. Of these, 28 papers met the criteria for inclusion. Only 18 papers provided sufficient information and robust enough research design to be included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis on 18 reoffending studies identified that delivering education in prison settings has a positive impact on recidivism. Overall, the pooled odds ratio indicates a reduction in the likelihood of recidivating of approximately one third (0.64=64%~2/3).Meta-analysis on five employment studies identified that education in prison settings has a positive impact on employment. Overall, odds ratios indicated a 24 percent increase in likelihood of gaining employment if the prisoner engages in prison education. However, this is based on a small number of papers with statistical findings being less robust and evidence drawn largely from the USA. evidence in a reasonably timely manner. However, the trade-offs include the potential loss of some relevant studies, particularly unpublished ones. All papers included in this report discuss prison education and its impact on rates of recisidivsm and employment. The nature and types of education that are discussed vary with the majority of studies failing to provide information around the specifics types of courses. Nearly all of the papers are from the United States with only one coming from the UK. This means most papers discuss either basic education, GED (General Education Diploma) qualifications or 'post-secondary' education without providing details of subject content, delivery, or duration. There are some exceptions to this, most notably Dugiud and Pawson's (1998) work around liberal arts education in Canadian prisons provides details around the educational content. However, this level of detail was not replicated elsewhere. Most of the studies also do not provide information regarding race, gender, sentence length, or criminal conviction of the participants. This report provides background information regarding the role of education in prisons and the current policy climate in the UK. Section 3 describes how the reviewers have interpreted the terms 'prison education' and defined the research questions. Section 4 provides an account of how papers were selected for inclusion and the methods of data extraction used. Section 5 presents two sets of findings. The first set is a descriptive account of the 28 papers that relate to the link between education in prison and post-release outcomes. The second set focuses on the 18 papers that were found to be suitable for a meta-analysis. The report concludes with a discussion of the key findings. 2. BACKGROUND FOR THE REVIEW Recent and current policy All prisons in England and Wales provide education. Over the last 1...
The Enablers of Change assessment and sentence planning tool has been designed to assess the risks, needs, strengths and protective factors of adults with convictions. Developed by Interserve, a Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) provider in England, the tool is an innovation. The first of its kind in the United Kingdom (UK) to operationalise the risk needs and responsivity model with the ‘good lives’ model and desistance principles for the general adult population of low to medium risk of harm individuals managed by CRCs. This article reports the development, early testing and formative evaluation of the tool and recommendations for its onward development. Given that such integration is regarded by many as the ‘holy grail’ of probation practice, this article is of international significance and will make an original contribution to the limited evidence base on operationalising desistance in the management of adults with convictions in the UK and other jurisdictions.
This article examines the extent to which the risk needs responsivity (RNR) model and desistance principles have been integrated and operationalised in the development of the Enablers of Change assessment and sentence planning tool developed by a Community Rehabilitation Company provider in England. We consider the constructs that underpin the tool, identifying points of departure and similarity between RNR principles (Andrews and Bonta, 2007), the ‘good lives’ model (Ward and Maruna, 2007) and desistance principles (McNeil and Weaver, 2010) and their integration. We examine how these constructs have been operationalised in the tool, which aims to assess needs, strengths, protective factors and contribute to risk assessment. Given the tool’s innovation, this article is of international significance and will make an original contribution to the evidence base on operationalising desistance in the management of people with convictions in England and Wales and other jurisdictions.
Purpose – The purpose of this position paper is to assess the contribution of restorative justice to the desistance paradigm with a particular focus upon the psychology of these approaches. Design/methodology/approach – Risk, need and responsivity approaches to offender intervention are discussed and compared with the desistance paradigm. An integrative approach of the two methods is proposed and the value of desistance approaches is highlighted in understanding processes of change and how restorative justice approaches can best contribute. Findings – Discussion of desistance theory and the consideration of primary, secondary and tertiary desistance stages leads to the exploration of interplays in social and the human capital and the contribution of restorative justice to the desistance process. A desistance process that belongs to the desister is proposed to be supported by restorative justice processes. Practical implications – Conceptualising the interplay of human and social capital within primary, secondary and tertiary desistance is suggested improve the responsivity of restorative processes, promote desistance, reduce recidivism and better support children’s rights. It provides justification to extend restorative approaches to 18-24-year-old young adults and to different settings. Restorative justice evaluation should consider the process of restorative justice and its outcome measurement could better consider desistance stages. Originality/value – The position paper outlines the unique contribution that restorative justice approaches can make in supporting desistance. It outlines a relevant conceptualisation of desistance to advance knowledge through an improved understanding of process to improve responsivity of restorative approaches and of evaluation practice.
We argue for the potential for needs assessment and sentence planning to transcend their core justice functions and set the tone for effective engagement between probation supervisee and supervisor. We draw on lived experience – analysis of interview and observational data from probation supervisors and supervisees, collected during the testing of a new needs assessment and sentence planning tool which aims to integrate the risk, needs, responsivity (RNR) model with desistance principles. After testing the findings against established models and principles of effective engagement, counter‐intuitively, we found that: disagreement can lead to agreement and more effective engagement. Additionally, that attention should be paid to the potential for the physical case management and supervision environment to positively influence the needs assessment and sentence planning process. These and the other findings have implications for policy and practice in the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions where probation is a core criminal justice function.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.