Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Forensic Psychology
- Part I Psychological Underpinnings
- Part II Psychology and Criminal Behaviour
- Part III Assessment
- Part IV Interventions
- Part V Civil Proceedings
- Part VI Professional Practices
- 6.1 Courtroom Testimony in Cases of Disputed Confessions
- 6.2 Evaluating Offending Behaviour Programmes in Prison and Probation
- 6.3 Working Effectively with Multicultural Offenders in a Clinical Context
- 6.4 Professional Training and Accreditation
- 6.5 Ethics
- 6.6 Forensic Case Formulation
- 6.7 Staff Supervision in Forensic Contexts
- Index
- References
6.2 - Evaluating Offending Behaviour Programmes in Prison and Probation
from Part VI - Professional Practices
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Forensic Psychology
- Part I Psychological Underpinnings
- Part II Psychology and Criminal Behaviour
- Part III Assessment
- Part IV Interventions
- Part V Civil Proceedings
- Part VI Professional Practices
- 6.1 Courtroom Testimony in Cases of Disputed Confessions
- 6.2 Evaluating Offending Behaviour Programmes in Prison and Probation
- 6.3 Working Effectively with Multicultural Offenders in a Clinical Context
- 6.4 Professional Training and Accreditation
- 6.5 Ethics
- 6.6 Forensic Case Formulation
- 6.7 Staff Supervision in Forensic Contexts
- Index
- References
Summary
In this chapter we focus on the evaluation of offending behaviour programmes across both prison and probation. We start with a broad discussion of the emergence of ‘what works’, the risk, need and responsivity model and desistance and follow that by setting out the argument for the critical place of evaluation. We will outline some of the different evaluation methods which can be used to examine the effectiveness of programmes, as well as the key challenges frequently encountered in evaluating programmes in the criminal justice setting. Finally we review what the most recent evidence tells us about the effectiveness of programmes. Evaluating offending behaviour programmes is exciting and challenging and while the evidence is growing there remains an enduring need for us to put our energies into asking what works for whom, how and why - and growing our understanding of the wider context within which such interventions are most likely to make a positive difference.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology , pp. 757 - 782Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Allen, L. C., MacKenzie, D. L., & Hickman, L. J. (2001). The effectiveness of cognitive behavioral treatment for adult offenders: A methodological, quality-based review. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45, 498–514.Google Scholar
Andrews, D. A. (2011). The impact of nonprogrammatic factors on criminal-justice interventions. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Routledge.Google Scholar
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52, 7–27.Google Scholar
Andrews, D. A., & Dowden, C. (2005). Managing correctional treatment for reduced recidivism: A meta‐analytic review of programme integrity. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 173–187.Google Scholar
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369–404.Google Scholar
Aos, S., & Drake, E. (2013). Prison, police and programs: Evidence-based options that reduce crime and save money. Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
Austin, P. C. (2014). A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score. Statistics in Medicine, 33, 1057–1069.Google Scholar
Barbaree, H. E. (2005). Psychopathy, treatment behavior, and recidivism: An extended follow-up of Seto and Barbaree. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1115–1131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnett, G. D. (2012). Gender-responsive programming: A qualitative exploration of women’s experiences of a gender-neutral cognitive skills programme. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, G. D., & Fitzalan Howard, F. (2018). What doesn’t work to reduce reoffending? A review of reviews of ineffective interventions for adults convicted of crimes. European Psychologist, 23, 111–129.Google Scholar
Beggs, S. (2010). Within-treatment outcome among sexual offenders: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 369–379.Google Scholar
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A., (2014). The Psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.Google Scholar
Bourgon, G., & Armstrong, B. (2005). Transferring the principles of effective treatment into a “real world” prison setting. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 32, 3–25.Google Scholar
Bucklan, K. B., & Zajac, G. (2009). But some of them don’t come back (to prison!): Resource deprivation and thinking errors as determinants of parole success and failure. The Prison Journal, 89, 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1969). Reforms as experiments. American Psychologist, 24, 409–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cann, J., Falshaw, L., Nugent, F., & Friendship, C. (2003). Understanding what works: Accredited cognitive skills programmes for adult men and young offenders (Research Findings No. 226). Home Office.Google Scholar
Chadwick, N., Dewolf, A., & Serin, R. (2015). Effectively training community supervision officers: A meta-analytic review of the impact on offender outcome. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 977–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, A. (2000). Theory manual for Enhanced Thinking Skills Programme. Prepared for Joint Prison/Probation Accreditation Panel. Home Office.Google Scholar
Clarke, A., Simmonds, R., & Wydall, S. (2004). Delivering cognitive skills programmes in prison: A qualitative study (Home Office Research Findings No. 242). Home Office.Google Scholar
Colledge, M., Collier, P., & Brand, S. (1999). Crime reduction programme – Guidance note 2. Programmes for offenders: Guidance for evaluators. Home Office.Google Scholar
Cullen, F. T. (2002). Rehabilitation and treatment programs. In Wilson, J. Q. & Petersilia, J. (Eds.), Crime and public policy (2nd ed.). ICS Press.Google Scholar
Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. In Horney, J. (Ed.), Criminal justice 2000: Vol. 4. Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system (pp. 109–175). National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Dennis, J. A., Khan, O., Ferriter, M., Huband, N., Powney, M. J., & Duggan, C. (2012). Psychological interventions for adults who have sexually offended or are at risk of offending (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012(12), 1–95.Google Scholar
Des Jarlais, D. C., Lyles, C., & Crepaz, N. (2004). Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioural and public health interventions: the TREND statement. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 361–366.Google Scholar
De Waard, J. (2019). What works?: A systematic overview of recently published meta evaluations / synthesis studies within the knowledge domains of Situational Crime Prevention, Policing and Criminal Justice Interventions, 1997–2017. Ministry of Justice and Security, Law Enforcement Department, Unit for General Crime PolicyGoogle Scholar
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2004). The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and comparative criminology, 48, 203–214.Google Scholar
Duwe, G. (2017). The use and impact of correctional programming for inmates on pre-and post-release outcomes. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
Duwe, G., & Clark, V. (2015). Importance of program integrity: Outcome evaluation of a gender‐responsive, cognitive‐behavioral program for female offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 14, 301–328.Google Scholar
Farrall, S., & Calverley, A. (2005). Understanding desistance from crime. McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
Farrington, D. P., Weisburd, D. L., & Gill, C. E. (2011). The Campbell collaboration crime and justice group: A decade of progress. In Routledge handbook of international criminology (pp. 85–95). Routledge.Google Scholar
Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2005). Randomized experiments in criminology: What have we learned in the last two decades? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 9–38.Google Scholar
French, S. A., & Gendreau, P. (2006). Reducing prison misconducts: What works. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 185–218.Google Scholar
Falshaw, L., Friendship, C., Travers, R., & Nugent, F. (2003). Searching for what works: An evaluation of cognitive skills programmes (Home Office Research Findings No. 206). Home Office.Google Scholar
Feder, L., Wilson, D. B., & Austin, S. (2008). Court-mandated interventions for individuals convicted of domestic violence. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 4.Google Scholar
Friendship, C., Blud, L., Erikson, M., Travers, R., & Thornton, D.M. (2003). Cognitive-behavioural treatment for imprisoned offenders: An evaluation of HM Prison Service’s cognitive skills programmes. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 8, 103–114.Google Scholar
Friendship, C., Falshaw, L., & Beech, A. R. (2003). Measuring the real impact of accredited offending behaviour programmes. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 8, 115–127.Google Scholar
Friendship, C., Mann, R. E., & Beech, A. R. (2003). Evaluation of a national prison-based treatment program for sexual offenders in England and Wales. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 744–59.Google Scholar
Gannon, T. A., Olver, M. E., Mallion, J. S., & James, M. (2019). Does specialized psychological treatment for offending reduce recidivism? A meta-analysis examining staff and program variables as predictors of treatment effectiveness. Clinical Psychology Review, 73, 101752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gendreau, P., French, S. A., & Gionet, A. (2004). What works (what doesn’t work): The principles of effective correctional treatment. Journal of Community Corrections, 13, 4–6.Google Scholar
Gobeil, R., Blanchette, K., & Stewart, L. (2016). A meta-analytic review of correctional interventions for women offenders: Gender-neutral versus gender-informed approaches. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 301–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goggin, C., & Gendreau, P. (2006). The implementation and maintenance of quality services in offender rehabilitation programmes. In Hollin, C. R. & Palmer, E. J. (Eds.), Offending behaviour programmes: development, application, and controversies. John Wiley.Google Scholar
Gondolf, E. W. (2004). Evaluating batterer counselling programs: A difficult task showing some effects and implications. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 9, 605–631.Google Scholar
Harkins, L., & Beech, A. R. (2007). Measurement of the effectiveness of sex offender treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 36–44.Google Scholar
Harper, G., & Chitty, C. (2005). The impact of corrections on re-offending: A review of “what works” (Home Office Research Study No. 291; 2nd ed.). Home Office.Google Scholar
Hecker, J. E., King, M. W., & Scoular, R. J. (2009). The startle probe reflex: An alternative approach to the measurement of sexual interest. In Cognitive approaches to the assessment of sexual interest in sexual offenders (pp. 203–224). John Wiley.Google Scholar
Holden, R. R., Kroner, D. G., Fekken, G. C., & Popham, S. M. (1992). A model of personality test item response dissimulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 272.Google Scholar
Hollin, C. R. (2006). Offending behaviour programmes and contention: evidence-based practice, manuals and programme evaluation. In Hollin, C. R. & Palmer, E. J. (Eds.), Offending behaviour programmes: Development, application and controversies. John Wiley.Google Scholar
Hollin, C. R. (2008). Evaluating offending behaviour programmes: Does only randomization glister? Criminology and Criminal Justice, 8, 89–106.Google Scholar
Hollin, C. R., McGuire, J., Hounsome, J. C., Hatcher, R. M., Bilby, C. A. L., & Palmer, E. J. (2008). Cognitive skills offending behavior programs in the community: A reconviction analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 269–283.Google Scholar
Holloway, K., & Bennett, T. H. (2016). The effects of drug interventions on crime and criminal behaviour: A systematic review of systematic reviews. In What works in crime prevention and rehabilitation. Springer.Google Scholar
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. (2007). A systematic review of the evidence on the effectiveness of violence reduction programmes and other interventions for violent offenders. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Koehler, J. A., Humphreys, D. K., Akoensi, T. D., Sáanchez de Ribera, O., & Lösel, F. (2014). A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of European drug treatment programmes on reoffending. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20, 584–6.02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landenberger, N. A., & Lipsey, M.W. (2005) The positive effects of cognitive-behavioural programs for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 451–477.Google Scholar
Langton, C. M., Barbaree, H. E., Harkins, L., & Peacock, E. J. (2006). Sex offenders’ response to treatment and its association with recidivism as a function of psychopathy. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 99–120.Google Scholar
Lilienfeld, S. O., Ritschel, L. A., Lynn, S. J., Cautin, R. L., & Latzman, R. D. (2014). Why ineffective psychotherapies appear to work a taxonomy of causes of spurious therapeutic effectiveness. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 355–387.Google Scholar
Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In Cook, T. D. et al. (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook. Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Lipsey, M. W. (1995). What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment with juvenile delinquents? In McGuire, J. (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending: Guidelines from research and practice (pp. 63–78). John Wiley.Google Scholar
Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4, 124–147.Google Scholar
Lipsey, M. W., Chapman, G. L., & Landenberger, N. A. (2001). Cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 144–157.Google Scholar
Lipsey, M. W., Landenberger, N. A., & Wilson, S. J. (2007). Effects of cognitive‐behavioral programs for criminal offenders. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 3, 1–27.Google Scholar
Looman, J., Abracen, J., Serin, R., & Marquis, P. (2005). Psychopathy, treatment change, and recidivism in high-risk, high-need sexual offenders. Journal of interpersonal Violence, 20(5), 549–568.Google Scholar
Lösel, F., & Schmucker, M. (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 117–146.Google Scholar
Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime and Delinquency, 52, 77–93.Google Scholar
Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective interventions. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 575–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and deliquents. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D.L., & Farrington, D.P. (2015). Preventing future offending of delinquents and offenders: What have we learned from experiments and meta-analyses? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 565–595.Google Scholar
Maguire, M., Grubin, D., Lösel, F., & Raynor, P. (2010). What works and the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel: An insider perspective. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 10, 37–58.Google Scholar
Mann, R. E., Fitzalan-Howard, F., & Tew, J. (2018). What is a rehabilitative prison culture? Prison Service Journal, 235, 3–9.Google Scholar
Mann, R.E., & Thornton, D. (1998). The evolution of a multi-site sex offender treatment programme. In Marshall, W. L., Fernandez, Y. M., Hudson, S. H., & Ward, T. (Eds.), Sourcebook of treatment programs for sexual offenders (pp. 47–58). Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–54.Google Scholar
Marques, J. K., Wiederanders, M., Day, D. M., Nelson, C., & von Ommeren, A. (2005). Effects of a relapse prevention program on sexual recidivism: Final results from California’s Sex Offender Treatment and Evaluation Project (SOTEP). Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 79–107.Google Scholar
Marshall, W. L., & Marshall, L. E. (2007). The utility of the random controlled trial for evaluating sexual offender treatment: The gold standard or an inappropriate strategy? Sex Abuse, 19, 175–191.Google Scholar
Maruna, S. (2015). Qualitative research, theory development, and evidence-based corrections: Can success stories be “evidence”? Qualitative Research in Criminology, 1, 311.Google Scholar
Maruna, S., & Mann, R. (2019). Reconciling “Desistance” and “What Works.” HM Inspectorate of Probation Academic Insights No. 2019/1.Google Scholar
McCord, J. (2003). Cures that harm: Unanticipated outcomes of crime prevention programs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587(1), 16–30.Google Scholar
McGuire, J. (2000). Can the criminal law ever be therapeutic? Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 18, 413–426.Google Scholar
McMurran, M., & McCulloch, A. (2007). Why don’t offenders complete treatment? Prisoners’reasons for non-completion of a cognitive skills programme. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, 345–354.Google Scholar
McMurran, M., & Theodosi, E. (2007). Is treatment non-completion associated with increased reconviction over no treatment? Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, 333–343.Google Scholar
Mews, A., Di Bella, L., & Purver, M. (2017). Impact evaluation of the prison-based Core Sex Offender Treatment Programme (Ministry of Justice Analytical Series). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/623876/sotp-report-web-.pdfGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2007). Does incarceration-based drug treatment reduce recidivism? A meta-analytic synthesis of the research. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3, 353–375.Google Scholar
Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., Eggers, A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2012a). Drug courts’ effects on criminal offending for juveniles and adults. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 4.Google Scholar
Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., Eggers, A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2012b). Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 60–71.Google Scholar
Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2012c). The effectiveness of incarceration‐based drug treatment on criminal behavior: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 18, 1–76.Google Scholar
Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., Eggers, A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2014). Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 66–71.Google Scholar
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.Google Scholar
Ogloff, J. R. P., & Davis, M. R. (2004). Advances in offender assessment and rehabilitation: Contributions of the risk-needs-responsivity approach. Psychology, Crime and Law, 10, 229–242.Google Scholar
Olver, M. E., Kingston, D. A., Nicholaichuk, T. P., & Wong, S. P. (2014). A psychometric examination of treatment change in a multisite sample of treated Canadian federal sexual offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 544–559.Google Scholar
Palmer, E. J., McGuire, J., Hatcher, R. M., Hounsome, J. C., Bilby, C. A. L., & Hollin, C. R. (2008). The importance of appropriate allocation to offending behavior programs. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52, 206–221.Google Scholar
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1994). What works in evaluation research? British Journal of Criminology, 34, 291–306.Google Scholar
Pearson, F. S., Lipton, D. S., Cleland, C. M., & Yee, D. S. (2002). The effects of behavioural/cognitive-behavioural programs on recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 48, 476–496.Google Scholar
Perry, A. E., Neilson, M., Martyn-St James, M., Glanville, J. M., Woodhouse, R., Godfrey, C., & Hewitt, C. (2015). Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders (review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 6.Google Scholar
Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., Hollis-Peel, M., & Lavenberg, J. G. (2013). Scared Straight and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 5.Google Scholar
Piccone, J. E. (2015). Improving the quality of evaluation research. Journal of Correctional Education, 66, 28–46.Google Scholar
Ramsay, L. (2020). Strengths-based programmes for men with sexual convictions, who have learning disability and learning challenges. In Hocken, K., Winder, B., Blagden, N., Lievesley, R., Elliott, H., & Banyard, P. (Eds.), Sexual crime and intellectual functioning (pp. 89–112). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (2003). The size and sign of treatment effects in sex offender therapy. In Prentky, R. A., Janus, E. S., & Seto, M. C. (Eds.), Sexually coercive behaviour: Understanding and management (pp. 428–440). New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Rocque, M. (2017). Desistance from crime: New advances in theory and research. Springer.Google Scholar
Sadlier, G. (2010). Evaluation of the impact of the HM Prison Service Enhanced Thinking Skills programme on reoffending: Outcomes of the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR) sample (Ministry of Justice Research No. 19/10). Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
Schmucker, M., & Lösel, F. (2015). The effects of sexual offender treatment on recidivism: An international meta-analysis of sound quality evaluations. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 597–630.Google Scholar
Sherman, L. W., MacKenzie, D. L., Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (Eds.). (2002). Evidence-based crime prevention. Routledge.Google Scholar
Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D. C., MacKenzie, D. L., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. D. (1997). Preventing Crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising (Research in Brief). National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
Shadish, W. R. (2013). Propensity score analysis: Promise, reality and irrational exuberance. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9, 129–144.Google Scholar
Shingler, J., & Pope, L. (2018). The effectiveness of rehabilitative services for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic people: A rapid evidence assessment. Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
Simourd, D. J., & Hoge, R. D. (2000). Criminal psychopathy: A risk-and-need perspective. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 256–272.Google Scholar
Tierney, D. W., & McCabe, M. P. (2001). An evaluation of self-report measures of cognitive distortions and empathy among Australian sex offenders. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30, 495–519.Google Scholar
Tong, L. S., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Effectiveness of “reasoning and rehabilitation” in reducing reoffending. Psicothema, 20, 20–28.Google Scholar
Travers, R., & Hollin, C.R (in press). A reconviction study of the Thinking Skills Programme in the community: A summary of results. Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
Travers, R., Mann, R. E., & Hollin, C. R. (2014). Who benefits from cognitive skills programmes? Differential impact by risk and offense type. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 1103–1129.Google Scholar
Travers, R., Wakeling, H. C., Mann, R. E., & Hollin, C. R. (2013). Reconviction following a cognitive skills intervention: An alternative quasi-experimental methodology. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18, 48–65.Google Scholar
Wakeling, H. C., Beech, A. R., & Freemantle, N. (2013). Investigating treatment change and its relationship to recidivism in a sample of 3773 sex offenders in the UK. Psychology, Crime and Law, 19, 233–252.Google Scholar
Wakeling, H., & Saloo, F. (2018). An exploratory study of the experiences of a small sample of men convicted of sexual offences who have reoffended after participating in prison-based treatment: analytical summary. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/749145/men-convicted-of-sexual-offences-report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wakeling, H., Webster, S. D., & Mann, R. E. (2005). Sexual offenders’ experiences of HM Prison Service sex offender treatment. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 11, 171–186.Google Scholar
Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2006). Evidence-based adult corrections programs: What works and what does not. www.wsipp.wa.govGoogle Scholar
Weisburd, D., Farrington, D. P., & Gill, C. (2017). What works in crime prevention and rehabilitation: An assessment of systematic reviews. Criminology & Public Policy, 16, 415–449.Google Scholar
Welsh, C. C., & Rocque, M. (2014). When crime prevention harms: A review of systematic reviews. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10, 245–266.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. B., Bouffard, L. A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2005). A quantitative review of structured, group-oriented, cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 172–204.Google Scholar