Many offenders participate in multiple treatment programs while incarcerated. Despite this, few studies have investigated the possibility of interactions between programs, and instead the correctional discourse has focused on assessing programs individually. However, it is likely that combinations of programs work together to affect offenders’ post-release performance in ways that cannot be predicted by the sum of their main effects alone. The current study uses logistic regression analysis to investigate the presence of interaction effects between custodial treatment programs in Canadian federal prison. It uses a population sample of 17,727 male offenders admitted to prison between January 1st, 2002 and December 31st, 2006, and released into the community on Day Parole or Statutory Release on or before December 31st, 2009. Findings of the study suggest that certain program combinations reduce the odds of post-release recidivism more than others, but effective programming differs depending on whether an offender has substance abuse needs. Furthermore, the number of successfully completed correctional programs raises an offender’s odds of post-release success, regardless of the content of the program.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Toronto, 2004. / Adviser: Lana Stermac.

Thesis (M.A.)--Duquesne University, 2007. / Title from document title page. Abstract included in electronic submission form. Includes bibliographical references (p. 40-46).

Thesis (M.A.) - Carleton University, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 84-104). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

In this thesis I investigate the effectiveness of the RealVictory Program, a juvenile aftercare program combined with a phone coach system, in the state of Utah. Using treatment and control groups, I examine both time to re-arrest as well as number of post-participation arrests to determine how effectively RealVictory reduces recidivism among juvenile participants released from secure care, in foster homes, or while on probation. I found the treatment group was at a 21.7 percent higher risk of being rearrested, but this result was not statistically significant. These results suggest that the program as a whole is not effective at reducing recidivism.

No description available.

No description available.

There is considerable responsibility on the clinician to identify sex offenders who may potentially commit more serious sexually violent behaviour and an increased demand for evidence based risk assessments (Macpherson, 1997; Thomas-Peter and Warren, 1998). Offenders who commit non-contact sexual crimes are traditionally classified as harmless despite the significant minority who escalate in offence severity towards more violent sexual offending. Forty convicted male sex offenders were classified as non-contact or contact sexual recidivists. Non-contact recidivists had a history of non-contact sexual offending on two or more occasions. Contact recidivists had a history of noncontact offending and had recidivated with a contact sexual offence. Groups were compared on the Sexual Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20: Boer et al. 1997) and the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL: SV: Hart et al. 1995). Psychosexual variables, criminal history and clinical risk factors were also coded using a multi-variable assessment model. A retrospective-prospective comparison successfully used by Quinsey et al. (1995) was performed between non-contact and contact recidivist groups. Factors that discriminated between non-contact recidivists and contact recidivists were primarily historical in nature, reflecting fixed or relatively stable characteristics. Significant differences between non-contact recidivists and contact recidivists were observed on total PCL: SV scores and psychosocial factors of the SVR-20 including sexual deviation, a history of childhood victimisation and past nonviolent offences. Contact recidivists were significantly younger than non-contact recidivists at first non-sexual offence and were significantly more likely to have a history of homosexual offending. A high level of interrater reliability on the SVR-20 and PCL: SV was observed. Suggested revisions to several iten1s of the SVR-20 and methodological considerations are reported. The research demonstrates that a progressive pattern of sexual offending from noncontact sexual offending to contact sexual offending is reliably associated with a combination of risk factors. The study offers the potential for early detection of a more serious escalation in sexual offending to allow for the possibility of supervision and clinical risk management.

Current research indicates a disproportionate number of youth having an emotional disturbance within the juvenile justice system. The purpose of the present study was to examine if recidivism can be predicted in juvenile offenders based on the youths' emotional disturbance score as measured by the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Version 2 (MAYSI-2) and severity of offense at their first physical arrest, as well as their age, gender, ethnicity, and median range of income by zip code (MRoI). Following Agnew's General Strain Theory, it was hypothesized that high scores on the MAYSI-2 scales, in addition to severity of offense and specific demographic variables would predict recidivism.Participants consisted of 863 records of juvenile offenders at a juvenile court detention center in Southern Arizona. The study consisted of 70% males and 30% females, with an age range of 12 to 16 years of age and ethnic breakdown consisting of 51% Hispanics, 36% Caucasians, 9% African Americans, and 4% Native Americans. This secondary data extraction included youths who were physically arrested for the first time during the 2008-year and their recidivism rate through the 2009-year. Results through logistic regression models indicated that two of the four MAYSI-2 scales significantly predicted recidivism. Specifically, youth who scored high versus low on the Alcohol/Drug Use scale had an increased factor of 1.83 times more likely to recidivate. Youth who answered "yes" on all five items on the Traumatic Experiences scale also predicted recidivism, with an increased factor of 4.37 times more likely to recidivate. Severity of offense also predicted recidivism, as well as age and MRoI. Results were also found to be significant within certain ethnic groups but not between the ethnic groups. Implications of these findings, limitations, and areas of future research are also discussed.

Criminogenic risk assessment, which was developed to predict recidivism, has risen to the status of “evidence-based practice” in corrections systems. As a result of its apparent success, proponents now claim that it captures the origins of criminal behavior, and can thus be leveraged to reduce correctional supervision rates and prevent crime. This dissertation investigates the validity of the these claims, by identifying and testing three assumptions requisite for the framework’s expansion: 1) the evidence base for the framework’s predictive performance is being interpreted correctly and appropriately, 2) the best causal models of recidivism are also the best causal models of the onset and duration of criminal behavior (and by extension, that interventions successful at reducing recidivism will be successful at reducing the onset, duration, and rate of criminal behavior); and 3) the causes of individual variation in criminal behavior are the same as causes of the population distribution, or incidence rate, of crime. This dissertation proceeds in three parts: a meta-review and critical analysis of the literature addresses the first assumption, and two empirical studies test the second and third assumptions, respectively. The meta-review determined that findings for the framework’s predictive performance are inconsistent, based on inadequate or insufficient statistical information, and often overstated. The first empirical study found that each arrest, and to a lesser extent conviction, an individual experienced increased their subsequent criminogenic risk levels, raising concerns about the framework’s applicability for crime prevention and etiology. The second empirical study found that criminogenic risks do not explain group differences in arrest and conviction rates, underscoring that researchers and policymakers should more cautiously communicate the scope of reform that the framework can deliver.