Offense-Focused Problem Solving

Abstract

Large-scale reviews of research on offender treatment have given clear indications that it is possible to reduce offender recidivism. Recently, a consensus has emerged concerning some of the features more likely to contribute to positive effects in this regard. One important consideration is that of focusing on criminogenic needs and employing methods designed to help offenders acquire cognitive problem-solving skills. In this article, a specially prepared group program is described, drawing on this research. The program has been run in probation service settings in the United Kingdom. In this preliminary report, short-term outcomes on intermediate treatment targets are presented for a sample of offenders (n = 220) who completed the program. Significant pretest to posttest changes were found on variables associated with criminogenic attitudes. The results demonstrate the viability of providing a structured group program for delivery on a significant scale within community-based correctional services.

Changing risk factors that impact recidivism: In search of mechanisms of change.

“…In addition to these two methodological procedures, the dropouts were included in the treatment group (n ϭ 331), allowing for a conservative evaluation of the intervention effectiveness. Overall, the results are consistent with cognitive-behavioral intervention efforts among offenders (Di Placido, Simon, Witte, Gu, & Wong, 2006;Henning & Frueh, 1996;Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005;Matthew & Pitts, 1998;McGuire et al, 2008;McGuire & Hatcher, 2001;Palmer, 1996;Pearson, Lipton, Cleland, & Yee, 2002;Timmerman & Emmelkamp, 2005;Wilson et al, 2005;Tong & Farrington, 2008).…”

Measuring Psychological Change and Predicting Recidivism Following the Swedish One-to-One Program

“…Program completers who were reconvicted had a higher belief in Chance locus of control than non-recidivists, in line with previous studies (41, 42) as well as the previous finding that the Chance subscale correlates with sociopathy (43). Interestingly, only the Chance subscale was of importance in relation to re-offending, while Internal or Powerful Others loci of control were not problematic.…”

Pro-criminal attitudes, intervention, and recidivism

“…Crime Pics II (Frude, Honess, & Maguire, 1994) General attitude to offending, anticipation of reoffending, victim hurt denial (α ≥ .73), evaluation of crime as worthwhile (α = .55) (cf. McGuire & Hatcher, 2001) 5, 9, 10, 14 Criminal Attribution Inventory (CRAI; Kroner & Mills, 2004) Psychopathology (α= .71), Personal (α= .62), Victim (α= .65), Alcohol (α= .84), Society (α= .62), Randomness (α= .55) 8…”

“…Kroner, & Mills (2004) study 1: Treatment change -number of positive changes in both attitudes and self-reported problems, and the total mean changes across all projects are statistically significant (p < .01) Group differences Greater level of attitude change for CRIME-PICS II (Frude, et al, 1994) -among prisoners in the probation-led schemes than in the voluntary sector-led schemes (p < .01, male prisons only) -among FOR program attendees than other prisoners (p < .01) -among prisoners experiencing 'high activity in custody' (defined as five or more types of action) than among those experiencing 'low activity in custody' (two or fewer types of action) (p < .01) 10. McGuire, & Hatcher (2001) T C = 220 2 Offense-Focused problemsolving training Pre-and post-Test correlations All significant for Crime PICS II Questionnaire (Frude, et al, 1994) Pre (Walters, 1990(Walters, , 1998 Pre-Post treatment change -significant pre-post-increase on Outcome Expectancies for Crime Negative (OEC-NEG) Scale -no significant decrease for anticipated positive outcomes (Outcome Expectancies for Crime Positive Scale; OEC-POS) OEC-POS with 12 anticipated positive outcomes and four anticipated negative outcomes (OEC-NEG) (Walters 2000(Walters , 2003 -no changes on either scale for waiting list-control group Study 2 -clinically and statistically significant reductions on the PICTS Current scale for program participants independent from factors unique to the institution -significant alterations on both PICTS scales (decreases), but stronger deceleration on the Current scale scores -superiority of shorter programs 14. Wilkinson (2005) T IT =105 T C = 43 T NC = 62 C = 98 3 Reasoning and Rehabilitatio n (Ross ,& Fabiano, 1985) Reconviction (2yrs after intervention) -no difference in reconviction between offenders (R&R and controls) -program completers were less likely to be reconvicted than controls Attitude change pre-post-treatment -reconvicted Offenders: Revise likelihood of reoffending down -not reconvicted Offenders: revised self-assessment upwards, almost no change in Crimepics score(Criminality: Crime Pics Scale; Frude, Honess & Magurie, 1994), reported to be less selfcontrolled (Self-control; Rosenbaum, 1980), small downward shift in self-reported problems -> offenders whose attitude changes pro-social were more likely to be reconvicted than offenders whose attitude didn't changed positive 15.…”