Daily Automated Telephone Assessment and Intervention Improved 1-Month Outcome in Paroled Offenders

• Author: Claes Andersson,Mats Berglund,Agneta Öjehagen,Zoran Vasiljevic,Peter Höglund
• Date: 01 June 2020
• Published date: 01 June 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X14526800
• Subject Matter: Articles

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2020, Vol. 64(8) 735 –752

© The Author(s) 2014

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X14526800

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Daily Automated Telephone

Assessment and Intervention

Improved 1-Month Outcome

in Paroled Offenders

Claes Andersson1, Zoran Vasiljevic1, Peter Höglund2,

Agneta Öjehagen2, and Mats Berglund2

Abstract

This randomized trial evaluates whether automated telephony could be used to

perform daily assessments in paroled offenders (N = 108) during their first 30 days

after leaving prison. All subjects were called daily and answered assessment questions.

Based on the content of their daily assessments, subjects in the intervention group

received immediate feedback and a recommendation by automated telephony, and

their probation officers also received a daily report by email. The outcome variables

were analyzed using linear mixed models. The intervention group showed greater

improvement than the control group in the summary scores (M = 9.6, 95% confidence

interval [CI] = [0.5, 18.7], p = .038), in mental symptoms (M = 4.6, CI = [0.2, 9.0],

p = .042), in alcohol drinking (M = 0.8, CI = [0.1, 1.4], p = .031), in drug use (M = 1.0,

CI = [0.5, 1.6], p = .000), and in most stressful daily event (M = 1.9, CI = [1.1, 2.7],

p = .000). In conclusion, automated telephony may be used to follow up and to give

interventions, resulting in reduced stress and drug use, in paroled offenders.

Keywords

Interactive Voice Response (IVR), brief intervention, paroled offenders, stress, mental

symptoms, substance use

Introduction

The Prison and Probation Services are responsible for reducing recidivism in con-

victed criminals. In Sweden, about 23,000 sentences are passed every year. Of those

1Malmö University, Sweden

2Lund University, Sweden

Corresponding Author:

Claes Andersson, Department of Criminology, Malmö University, 205 06 Malmö, Sweden.

Email: claes.andersson@mah.se

526800IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X14526800International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyAndersson et al.

research-article2014

736 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 64(8)

who have been convicted in some way, about a quarter commit a new crime within 1

year and about half commit a new crime within 3 years (Langan & Levin, 2002;

Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, 2007; Wallman, 2005). Recidivism

varies greatly, with the highest rates found in paroled offenders, where about two out

of five commit a new crime within 1 year (Swedish National Audit Office, 2004). The

risk of committing a new crime or violating the terms of parole is greatest in the first

days, weeks, and months after release (National Research Council, 2008).

It is obviously important to develop methods that facilitate the re-entry process.

Effective or promising interventions may either reduce the actual rates of recidivism

or improve associated variables (National Research Council, 2008; Seiter & Kadela,

2003), where the latter approach is based on the assumption that rehabilitation of basic

strengths helps to reduce criminality (Ward, Yates, & Willis, 2012). Variables associ-

ated with crime and recidivism in crime have been divided into static risk factors such

as criminal history and family background, and dynamic risk factors, which change

over time, where acute dynamic factors reflect immediate situations or circumstances

and/or immediate emotional states that may change almost instantaneously (Andrews

& Bonta, 2010; Zamble & Quinsey, 1997).

In a recent study, the re-entry process was defined as a stressful event, where a

sometimes overwhelmingly positive feeling at release was soon followed by events

that resulted in difficulties such as substance abuse cravings and practical problems

(Phillips & Lindsay, 2011). Stress has been identified as an acute dynamic risk factor

for crime and criminal recidivism, both according to classical strain theories (Merton,

1938), and the more recent coping-relapse model of criminal recidivism (Zamble &

Quinsey,1997), and in the Risk-Need-Responsibility (RNR) model of correctional

assessment (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Stress is defined as an unspecific reaction,

which is activated by either a threat or a demand (Morse, 1998), and that often results

in an anxious or depressive emotional response sometimes recognized as the fight-or-

flight response, and which is managed through various types of either adaptive or

maladaptive coping strategies (Everly & Lating, 2002; Gelder, Harrison, & Cowen,

2006). Substance use and craving for substances has also been defined as an acute

dynamic risk factor for criminal recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2010), and are often

also considered as a common maladaptive strategy to cope with stress (al’Abusi,

2007).

It has been argued that static risk factors are important in designing initial treatment

intensity, but that they have no practical value when attempting to direct and monitor

the re-entry process. Only dynamic risk factors can be subject to interventions that

may result in reduced risk of committing a new crime (Andrews & Bonta, 2010;

Hansson & Harris, 2000; Zamble & Quinsey,1997). However, the work of the correc-

tional officers is mainly based on static data and not on dynamic data (Jones, Brown,

& Zamble, 2010), and their work situation is associated with a significant workload

and difficulties in keeping up with their work (Finney, Stergiopoulos, Hensel, Bonato,

& Dewa, 2013), which further restricts their ability to monitor daily changes in their

clients as well as their possibility to offer appropriate interventions based on these

results.