The Effectiveness of Relapse Prevention with Offenders: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Although relapse prevention models have been applied within offender treatment, there has been little controlled outcome research evaluating their effectiveness. This meta-analysis of 40 tests of relapse prevention treatment revealed moderate mean reductions in recidivism (0.15), and certain elements of the relapse prevention model (i.e., training significant others in the program model and identifying the offense chain) yielded stronger effects than others (i.e., provision of booster/aftercare sessions and developing coping skills). Further analyses revealed that the clinically relevant and psychologically informed principles of risk, need, and general responsivity yielded the strongest reductions in recidivism. The implications for future research and treatment are discussed.

Program Evaluation Challenges: Is Aggression Replacement Training (ART) Effective?

“…For example, three samples consisted of predominantly white males (Kennedy, 1989;Curulla, 1991;Leeman et al, 1993), racial demographic data were not available in other studies (Goldstein et al, 1989;Jones, 1991;Coleman et al, 1992;Gundersen & Svartdal, 2006), and only four experimental ART studies included multiethnic samples (Goldstein et al, 1987(Goldstein et al, , 1994Nodarse 1998;Nugent et al, 1999). Given that minorities are overrepresented compared to whites in the delinquent population (Glick, 2003) this shortcoming limits consumers' ability to comprehend findings' implications or replicate findings (Dowden, Antonowicz & Andrews, 2003).…”

Parcours : un programme correctionnel adapté aux courtes peines

“…Dans le champ de la toxicomanie, la recherche évaluative a corroboré l'effi cacité des programmes de prévention de la rechute (Witkiewitz et Marlatt, 2007). Une méta-analyse a montré que les stratégies de prévention de la récidive étaient aussi effi caces avec les contrevenants (Dowden et al, 2003).…”

Anger and Forensic Problems

“…The number of sessions typically range between six (Dangel, Deschner & Rasp, 1989;Stermac, 1986) and 24 or 25 (Dowden, 1999;Winogron, 1997) with an average of about 12 sessions (DiGiuseppe & Tafrate, 2003). However, even two-session interventions have been explored (McDougall et al, 1990;Munro & McPherson, 2001) and the presence or absence of additional booster or relapse prevention sessions is also relevant (Dowden, Antonowicz & Andrews, 2003). Now self-administered computerised anger programmes are also beginning to appear in the literature (Bosworth, Espelage & DuBay, 1998) although these have not yet been applied to clinical populations.…”