the intended & unintended outcomes of detention criminal justice platform brussels, 18 september...
TRANSCRIPT
The Intended & Unintended Outcomes of Detention
Criminal Justice Platform
Brussels, 18 September 2014
Peter van der Laan
NSCR & VU University Amsterdam
Email contacts:
What do you know about detention?
• Purposes• Outcomes
Purposes
• Protection by incapacitation• Retribution• General Prevention• Special (individual) prevention• Rehabilitation (resocialisation, reintegration)
Outcomes
• ……..• ……..• ……..
• Intended• Unintended
Today
• Outcomes• Intended and unintended• Research-based
• Detention (Prison Project)• Aftercare• Electronic monitoring
• Dutch examples
Prison Project - design
• Large Scale Longitudinal Panel Study:• 1,909 men (ages 18-65)• taken into pre-trial detention• in all 26 prison in The Netherlands• from October 2010 to March 2010• Interviewed within 3 weeks after prison entry• subsequently interviewed over a long-term follow-up
period, i.e. both in detention and/or post-release
• We are interested in:• life before imprisonment• experience of imprisonment• consequences of imprisonment
Prison Project - Focus
• Employment• Physical and psychological health• Social networks• Life in prison• Prison circumstances• Interventions in prison• Sentencing• Probation, parole• Marriage and divorce• Wellbeing of partners• Wellbeing of children• Deterrence, reofffending
• Leiden University, NSCR, Utrecht University• Team of 15 researchers & 100+ interviewers (students)
Prison Project - Organization
• Leiden University, NSCR, Utrecht University• Team of 15 researchers & 100+ interviewers (students)
• Over 2m Euro• Dutch Science Foundation• Universities & NSCR• Ministry of Security and Justice• Dutch Prison Service• Dutch Probation Service• Council for the Judiciary
• Dutch Prison Museum
Prison Project - Health
• Why?• High prevalence of health problems• Correctional institutions are seen as reservoirs of physical
and mental health problems which will flow back in the community once prisoners are released
• Correctional institutions offer an important opportunity to improve prisoners’ health (also benefit public health)
• We know• Prison populations experience serious mental and physical
health problems
• We don’t know• Whether and how imprisonment is affecting the health of
people entering prison
• Longitudinal studies help!
Prison Project – General Health Status
How would you describe your health?
18-25 years 25-35 years 35-45 years 45-55 years 55-65 years0
20
40
60
80
100
71 6962
52
40
91 89 89
8075
Prisoners General population
Prison Project – Mental Health (BSI)
Prisoners General population
M1 SD M1 SD
BSI total score 0.69 0.70 0.35 0.33
Somatic complaints
0.52 0.76 0.29 0.40
Cognitive problems
0.80 0.87 0.51 0.52
Depressive problems
0.82 0.96 0.37 0.46
Anxiety 0.68 0.83 0.31 0.40
Prison Project – Mental Health (BSI)
Prisoners General population
M1 SD M1 SD
Hostility 0.61 0.77 0.38 0.43
Phobic anxiety 0.44 0.70 0.15 0.29
Paranoid thoughts
1.05 0.89 0.52 0.56
Psychoticism 0.62 0.75 0.30 0.39
Interpersonal sensitivity
0.58 0.80 0.36 0.47
Prison Project – Physical Health
Prisoners General population
% %
Fatigue 34 23
Migraine 20 10
Back problem/ hernia
16 9
Intestinal complaints (longer
than 3 months)
4 2
Prison Project - Drugs
Prisoners General population
% %
Current smoker 77 24
Former smoker 8 41
Never smoker 15 36
Drugs – ever used 74
Drugs – last 12 months
59
CannabisCocaineHeroin
46217
102
0.1
(Almost) daily use 27
Prison Project – Alcohol (Heavy Drinker)
Prison Project - Health
• Prisoners have diverse – pre-existing – health problems at admission in prison:
• A worse health compared to general population
• A more unhealthy life style
• Less access to dentists and medical specialists but more contact with psychological health care
Prison Project - Health
• Outcome:
• Health of prisoners improves
• Even within relatively short time
• After prison: can deteriorate easily and shortly care
• Caveat: in NL detention relatively short
Prison Project - Architecture
• Are prison design characteristics related to how inmates perceive their autonomy, safety and relationships with staff?
Prison Project – Architecture (autonomy)
Series12.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.52
2.68 2.692.73
2.84
Panopticon
N=181SD=.69
Cruciform
N=759SD=.68
Wing
N=332SD=.70
Atrium
N=133SD=.72
High-rise
N=49SD=.72
Prison Project – Architecture (safety)
Panopticon
N=179SD=.61
Cruciform
N=759SD=.62
Wing
N=339SD=.64
Atrium
N=132SD=.69
High-rise
N=48SD=.63
Prison Project – Architecture (relationships with staff)
Series12.8
2.9
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
2.99
3.213.25
3.32 3.31
Panopticon
N=176SD=.75
Cruciform
N=752SD=.72
Wing
N=326SD=.74
Atrium
N=132SD=.77
High-rise
N=48SD=.73
Prison Project - Architecture
• In high-rise design prisoners are most positive about the perceived autonomy, safety and relationships with staff
• In panopticon designs prisoners are least positive about the perceived autonomy, safety and relationships with staff
Prison Project - Employment
• Imprisonment limits employment opportunities and wages by 10 to 15 %
• Before imprisonment 62% did not work
• Within 6 months after release 50% has found a job
Prison Project – Employment (support during detention)
Prison Project – Employment (work in prison)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e
Niet gewerkt in detentie (25,6%) Wel gewerkt in detentie (74,4%)
Prison Project – Employment (vocational training)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e
Niet deelgenomen aan cursus(76,5%)
Wel deelgenomen aan cursus(23,5%)
Prison Project - Employment
• Likelihood of employment after imprisonment increased by:• Being employed before imprisonment• Short period of detention• Positive about support
• No impact:• Work in prison• Vocational training in prison
Aftercare
• Nieuwe Perspectieven bij Terugkeer (NPT) (New Perspectives at Re-entry), aftercare programme for adolescent and young adult detainees (16-24)
• RCT in Amsterdam, The Hague & Utrecht• Programme accredited by Dutch Accreditation Panel• Programme started in 2009• Part of evaluation: meta-analysis of similar programmes
elsewhere• Evaluation by University of Amsterdam & NSCR
Aftercare – Meta-Analysis
• Re-entry and aftercare programs• Excluded: external control and coercion only• Ages 10-30• Outcome measure: re-offending/recidivism• Various moderators: offender characteristics, program
characteristics, study characteristics• ‘Campbell approach‘: i.e. computerized databases,
search engines, cross-referencing biblioghraphies, hand searching, contacting authors
• Published and unpublished studies• Experimental and quasi-experimental designs (level 3-5
SMS)• 22 studies
Table 1: Linear Regression Analysis for Continuous Moderator Variables
Moderator variables N_winsorized K Beta Z p
Mean Age 4595 22 .42 9.16 .000
Age of First Arrest 1492 9 .07 1.01 .312
Number of Prior Arrests 1376 9 .09 1.36 .173
Proportion Minority 4595 22 .09 1.97 .048
Proportion Gang involvement 1642 8 .54 6.03 .000
Proportion of Drug Abusers 2356 14 -.22 -3.73 .000
Treatment Duration 3683 19 -.09 -1.46 .143
Treatment Intensity 2543 14 .27 5.01 .000
Publication Year 4595 22 .12 2.66 .008
Impact of Journal 2134 8 -.43 -7.87 .000
Study Quality 4595 22 .13 2.84 .005
Proportion Sample Attrition 3592 15 -.29 -5.68 .000
Attrition Difference 2856 13 .12 2.25 .024
Table 2: Univariate Analysis of Variancce for Categorical Moderator Variables
Moderator variables Number of respondents, N
Number of studies K
Effect size d p 95% confidence interval
Q statisticbetween studies
p Q statisticwithin studies
p
Overall 4595 22 .12 .000 .09 to .15 476.38 .000
Proportion Males in Sample Mixed sample 50 – 95% Male sample > 95%
25001939
1011
.07.19
.000.000
.03 to .11.14 to .23
15.98 .000 341.93118.47
.000.000
Predominant Current Offense Violent Non-violent
11762351
611
.29-.01
.000.480
.24 to .35-.05 to .03
73.69 .000 42.97271.02
.000.000
Recidivism Risk Rating Moderate High
11372527
610
.07.18
.021.000
.01 to .13.14 to .22
9.42 .002 38.53176.18
.000.000
Treatment modality Systemic Individual Both
73623551504
2119
.14.26-.10
.000.000.000
.07 to .22.21 to .30-.16 to -.05
67.70 .000 25.29105.08228.17
.000.000.000
Treatment design Individual treatment Group therapy & individual therapy
28711503
147
.23-.15
.000.000
.19 to .26-.20 to -.10
181.43 .000 147.94147.01
.000.000
Treatment Combination Systemic / individual treatment Individual / individual treatment Individual / individual treatment & group therapy Systemic & Individual / individual treatment Systemic & Individual / individual treatment & group therapy
73618382962971207
28245
.14.23.21.44-.23
.000.000.000.000.000
.07 to .22.18 to .27.10 to .33.33 to .56 -.29 to -.18
246.80 .000 25.2979.711.9724.5498.07
.000.000.000.000.000
Start before release Yes No
29021245
164
.12.13
.000.000
.08 to .16.07 to .18
.02 .877 355.86120.43
.000.000
Study Design RCT Matched control group Quasi-experimental
127014861839
967
.08.10.17
.005<.000.000
.02 to .14.05 to .15.12 to .21
6.45 .040 111.9181.77276.24
.000.000.000
Publication Source Article in journal Report Dissertation
21381899562
8122
.15.08.14
.000.001.001
.11 to .20.03 to .12.06 to .23
6.42 .040 331.5785.2053.18
.000.000.000
Implementation Does not mention implementation quality Assessed implementation, well implemented Assessed implementation, reported difficulties
150717681320
697
.20.19-.07
.000.000.000
.15 to .25.14 to .24-.12 to -.01
64.87 .000 311.8750.2249.42
.000.000.000
Time of Last Follow-up < 12 months ≥ 12 months
3024293
319
.50.09
.000.000
.38 to 61.06 to .12
43.98 .000 14.89417.51
.000.000
Nature of Control group No treatment Care as Usual
3524012
414
.27.11
.000.000
.19 to .33.07 to .15
14.84 <.000 17.98397.98
<.000.000
Pre-differences between treatment and control Yes No
21092024
129
.06.12
.000.003
.02 to .11.07 to .16
2.51 .113 275.21164.29
.000.000
Aftercare - Outcomes
• Overall: small positive effect on recidivism• Most effective if well implemented (limited attrition)• Individual treatment most effective• Intensity of programme important for effectiveness• Duration of programme of fewer importance• More effective for older youths• More effecyive for offenders at high risk of recidivism• Age of first arrest and number of prior arrests: no
influence• Higher level of drug abuse: smaller effect sizes• Starting aftercare before release from prison does not
increase effectiveness• Better quality of study smaller effect sizes
Electronic monitoring
• Strong increase• Short time outcomes: few incidents incl. reoffending• Long term outcomes: limited• Support vs. control• We know too little
Policy & Practice
• We need to know more• We need to know more details• We need to include more outcome measures• We need to have better designs (propensity score
matching)