Within-Treatment Change: Finding the Individual in Group Outcomes

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7863(2012)0000013011
• Published date: 21 May 2012
• Pages: 145-171
• Date: 21 May 2012
• Author: Erica Bowen

WITHIN-TREATMENT CHANGE:

FINDING THE INDIVIDUAL IN

GROUP OUTCOMES

Erica Bowen

ABSTRACT

Traditionally evaluators of offending behaviour programmes have

examined group-level mean change in treatment targets without acknowl-

edging the potential variability of change at an individual level. Clinically

significant change, although used widely in the therapy literature

generally, has only recently been examined within forensic therapeutic

contexts. This chapter provides an overview of key concepts, and the

published literature in which clinically significant change has been

examined within forensic samples is reviewed. It is concluded that

although this technique has the potential to validate programme theory, it

is yet to be used to its full potential within a forensic context.

INTRODUCTION

In England and Wales, as elsewhere, emphasis has been placed on

implementing evidence-based policies through the development and accred-

itation of offending behaviour programmes, which are adopted nationally

Perspectives on Evaluating Criminal Justice and Corrections

Advances in Program Evaluation, Volume 13, 145–171

Copyright r2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1474-7863/doi:10.1108/S1474-7863(2012)0000013011

145

after a period of design, implementation and evaluation (Hollin & Palmer,

2006). Based on the ‘What works’ (McGuire, 1995) philosophy, such

programmes in England and Wales are required to meet 10 strict criteria in

terms of approach, implementation and evaluation (HM Prison Service,

2004, Prison Service Order 4360). The 10 criteria are briefly summarised in

Table 1.

The introduction of the accreditation policy constituted a significant

policy shift and along with this came a requirement to identify the

effectiveness of these programmes. According to the Prison Service Order

(4360), the evaluation criteria:

yin the long term means a reconviction study with relevant comparison data, as soon

as reasonably feasibleya decrease in recidivism is intended to be achieved through

change inydynamic risk factors, improvement in these risk factors is an important

ymeasure of efficacy.

Table 1. Summary of Accreditation Criteria for Offending Behaviour

Programmes in England and Wales.

Criteria Definition

1. Clear model of

change

There must be an explicit model to explain how the programme is

intended to bring about relevant change in offenders.

2. Selection of

offenders

It must be specified clearly the types of offender for whom the

programme is intended and how such offenders will be selected.

3. Targeting a range

of dynamic risk

factors

A range of dynamic risk factors known to be associated with

reoffending must be addressed in an integrated manner within the

programme.

4. Effective

methods

There must be evidence to show that the treatment methods used are

likely to have an impact on the targeted dynamic risk factors.

5. Skills oriented The programme must facilitate the learning of skills that will assist

participants in avoiding criminal activities and enable their

involvement in legitimate pursuits.

6. Sequencing,

intensity,

duration

The amount of treatment provided must be linked to the needs of

programme participants, with the introduction of different

treatment components timed so that they complement each other.

7. Engagement and

motivation

The programme must be structured to maximise the engagement of

participants and to sustain their motivation throughout.

8. Continuity of

programmes and

service

There must be clear links between the programme and the overall

management of the offender, both during a prison sentence and in

the context of community supervision.

9. Maintaining integrity There must be provision to monitor how well the programme

functions and a system to modify aspects of it that do not perform

as expected.

10. Ongoing evaluation There must be provision to evaluate the efficacy of the programme.

ERICA BOWEN146