Exploring Models of Care and the Perceived Impact in an Offender Rehabilitation Program

• Author: Caoimhe Carolan,Suzanne Guerin,Alice O’Flynn
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X211049201
• Published date: 01 June 2022
• Date: 01 June 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211049201

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2022, Vol. 66(8) 914 –930

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X211049201

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Exploring Models of Care

and the Perceived Impact in

an Offender Rehabilitation

Program

Caoimhe Carolan1, Alice O’Flynn2,

and Suzanne Guerin1

Abstract

Offender rehabilitation programs incorporating positive psychology interventions

such as a strengths-based model can be effective. This study explores the perceived

model of service provided by an offender rehabilitation service and the perceived

impact that this service has on the lives of its clients. A qualitative methodology

was employed in the context of an action research design, using semi-structured

interviews with key stakeholders. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis

which is an independent and reliable approach to qualitative analysis. The findings

suggest that participants perceive the organization to be operating a strengths-based

approach and this is perceived as having the potential to have a range of positive

effects for clients. Some contrasting views were also identified within the participant

groups and these are discussed in this paper. The results of this study complement

the existing research and have several implications for future research in this area.

Keywords

model of care, perceived impact, offender, rehabilitation, strengths-based model

Introduction

There are over 10 million individuals in prison worldwide and this figure continues to

grow, with more than 30 million people being released from prison annually (Walmsley,

1University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

2Care After Prison, Dublin, Ireland

Corresponding Author:

Suzanne Guerin, University College Dublin, Newman Building, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.

Email: suzanne.guerin@ucd.ie

1049201IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X211049201International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyCarolan et al.

research-article2021

Carolan et al. 915

2016). A systematic review by Yukhnenko et al. (2020) reported that in the US, 68%

of offenders will be reconvicted within 3 years of release, in Australia 44.8% of prison-

ers released in 1 year were back in prison within 2 years, and in the UK the 1 year

reconviction rate was 48%. The Irish Prison Services’ (IPS) annual report states that

over 2,000 prisoners were released into the community in 2017 (IPS, 2017). A report

found that, within 3 years, the recidivism rate of offenders in Ireland was 62.3% and

that two thirds of re-offences happened within 6 months of release (IPS, 2013). It is

recognized worldwide that the health burden of violence and crime is increasing

(World Health Organization, 2014), therefore reducing recidivism can largely contrib-

ute to public safety and public health (Yukhnenko et al., 2020). Given the rate of pris-

oners transitioning back into the community, there is a need to establish interventions

designed to support successful reintegration (Hunter et al., 2016). Within this context,

the present study reports an action research project, designed to examine the model of

reintegration in a non-profit, community-based organization.

It has been suggested that the traditional offender reintegration model focuses on

systematic processes at the expense of agency, adopts negative intervention goals and

views individuals as risk factors rather than as persons (Ward & Maruna, 2007).

Evidence suggests that traditional reintegration programs have failed to reduce the rate

of recidivism as past approaches were often based on the idea of tougher treatment

(Spencer & Jones-Walker, 2004) and focused on the legal relationship between the

state and the offender and did not value the interests of the victims or the wider com-

munity (Ward et al., 2014). Gendreau (1996) concluded that the intensification of pun-

ishment does not result in a reduction in criminal activity while, Izzo and Ross (1990)

reported that additional and more severe punishment does not reduce criminal activity.

These arguments have been used to address problems with rehabilitation programs in

modern society. The papers mentioned above are somewhat outdated and one might

question their ability to inform current rehabilitation frameworks and strategies.

Therefore, to tackle this issue effectively, more current and relevant research is

required, nonetheless, it has been suggested that the “get tough” approach to correc-

tional reintegration is too simplistic (Spencer & Jones-Walker, 2004), as studies show

that many variables can impact successful offender rehabilitation. Ward and Maruna

(2007) highlight that offender reintegration frameworks are reluctant to give values

and self-narratives a central place in the desistance journey and fail to appreciate that

risk is as much a contextual and social factor as a psychological one. Elliott et al.

(1998) state that we must deal simultaneously with individual variables and contextual

factors for correctional rehabilitation to have a significant impact.

There has been a slow shift toward a positive psychology approach as an effective

alternative to the traditional model of offender treatment (Wormith et al., 2007). The

theory behind the use of positive psychology in community integration and recidivism

suggests that promoting positive traits, human strengths, wellbeing or optimal func-

tioning can help individuals find meaning and purpose to their lives (Bolier et al.,

2013). For example, Shuker and Newton (2008) concluded from their study that

changes in mental health and wellbeing can occur in conjunction with reduction in

offending risk, they found that a strengths-based approach, such as improving