NCJ Number
208430
Editor(s)
Gemma Harper,
Chloe Chitty
Date Published
December 2004
Length
128 pages
Annotation
This report, commissioned by the Great Britain Home Office, reviews and updates the state of knowledge concerning “what works” in corrections to reduce reoffending.
Abstract
The focus of the report is on correctional responses to adult offenders aimed at the reduction of reoffending. The first section introduces the policy context in which developments in sentencing and legislation have occurred. Changes in sentencing have spurred the development of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), an organization designed to work with offenders to reduce their risk of reoffending. Sentencing in recent years has become much more severe, resulting in rising prison populations, increases in community sentences, and reductions in the use of fines. New sentencing provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 have posed a challenge to NOMS in its primary aim of both punishing offenders and reducing recidivism. The report reviews evidence on how corrections has impacted reoffending rates, which have held steady at over 50 percent for a number of years. The second section focuses on risk factors associated with offending behavior and with the persistence of offending behavior over time, such as substance misuse and gender. The third section describes recidivism reduction programs useful with both prison and probation populations. The international research literature supports the use of cognitive-behavioral approaches as the most effective at reducing reoffending behavior. Within the United Kingdom, program evaluations have been predominantly quasi-experimental or non-experimental, leaving some doubt as to whether the observed outcomes may actually be attributed to the effects of treatment. The fourth section reviews alternative approaches to integrating offenders back into the community; successful community integration is a crucial component of recidivism reduction. The fifth section assesses the state of the current evidence to underscore improvements that should be made in the policy design, implementation, and evaluation of reoffending reduction programs. Tables, figures, appendix, references