The Intended & Unintended Outcomes of Detention Criminal Justice Platform Brussels, 18 September 2014 Peter van der Laan NSCR & VU University Amsterdam.

The Intended & Unintended Outcomes of Detention

Criminal Justice Platform

Brussels, 18 September 2014

Peter van der Laan

NSCR & VU University Amsterdam

Email contacts:

[email protected]

[email protected]

What do you know about detention?

• Purposes• Outcomes

Purposes

• Protection by incapacitation• Retribution• General Prevention• Special (individual) prevention• Rehabilitation (resocialisation, reintegration)

Outcomes

• ……..• ……..• ……..

• Intended• Unintended

Today

• Outcomes• Intended and unintended• Research-based

• Detention (Prison Project)• Aftercare• Electronic monitoring

• Dutch examples

Prison Project - design

• Large Scale Longitudinal Panel Study:• 1,909 men (ages 18-65)• taken into pre-trial detention• in all 26 prison in The Netherlands• from October 2010 to March 2010• Interviewed within 3 weeks after prison entry• subsequently interviewed over a long-term follow-up

period, i.e. both in detention and/or post-release

• We are interested in:• life before imprisonment• experience of imprisonment• consequences of imprisonment

Prison Project - Focus

• Employment• Physical and psychological health• Social networks• Life in prison• Prison circumstances• Interventions in prison• Sentencing• Probation, parole• Marriage and divorce• Wellbeing of partners• Wellbeing of children• Deterrence, reofffending

• Leiden University, NSCR, Utrecht University• Team of 15 researchers & 100+ interviewers (students)

Prison Project - Organization

• Leiden University, NSCR, Utrecht University• Team of 15 researchers & 100+ interviewers (students)

• Over 2m Euro• Dutch Science Foundation• Universities & NSCR• Ministry of Security and Justice• Dutch Prison Service• Dutch Probation Service• Council for the Judiciary

• Dutch Prison Museum

Prison Project - Health

• Why?• High prevalence of health problems• Correctional institutions are seen as reservoirs of physical

and mental health problems which will flow back in the community once prisoners are released

• Correctional institutions offer an important opportunity to improve prisoners’ health (also benefit public health)

• We know• Prison populations experience serious mental and physical

health problems

• We don’t know• Whether and how imprisonment is affecting the health of

people entering prison

• Longitudinal studies help!

Prison Project – General Health Status

How would you describe your health?

18-25 years 25-35 years 35-45 years 45-55 years 55-65 years0

20

40

60

80

100

71 6962

52

40

91 89 89

8075

Prisoners General population

Prison Project – Mental Health (BSI)

Prisoners General population

M1 SD M1 SD

BSI total score 0.69 0.70 0.35 0.33

Somatic complaints

0.52 0.76 0.29 0.40

Cognitive problems

0.80 0.87 0.51 0.52

Depressive problems

0.82 0.96 0.37 0.46

Anxiety 0.68 0.83 0.31 0.40

Prison Project – Mental Health (BSI)

Prisoners General population

M1 SD M1 SD

Hostility 0.61 0.77 0.38 0.43

Phobic anxiety 0.44 0.70 0.15 0.29

Paranoid thoughts

1.05 0.89 0.52 0.56

Psychoticism 0.62 0.75 0.30 0.39

Interpersonal sensitivity

0.58 0.80 0.36 0.47

Prison Project – Physical Health

Prisoners General population

% %

Fatigue 34 23

Migraine 20 10

Back problem/ hernia

16 9

Intestinal complaints (longer

than 3 months)

4 2

Prison Project - Drugs

Prisoners General population

% %

Current smoker 77 24

Former smoker 8 41

Never smoker 15 36

Drugs – ever used 74

Drugs – last 12 months

59

CannabisCocaineHeroin

46217

102

0.1

(Almost) daily use 27

Prison Project – Alcohol (Heavy Drinker)

Prison Project - Health

• Prisoners have diverse – pre-existing – health problems at admission in prison:

• A worse health compared to general population

• A more unhealthy life style

• Less access to dentists and medical specialists but more contact with psychological health care

Prison Project - Health

• Outcome:

• Health of prisoners improves

• Even within relatively short time

• After prison: can deteriorate easily and shortly care

• Caveat: in NL detention relatively short

Prison Project - Architecture

• Are prison design characteristics related to how inmates perceive their autonomy, safety and relationships with staff?

Prison Project – Architecture (autonomy)

Series12.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

2.52

2.68 2.692.73

2.84

Panopticon

N=181SD=.69

Cruciform

N=759SD=.68

Wing

N=332SD=.70

Atrium

N=133SD=.72

High-rise

N=49SD=.72

Prison Project – Architecture (safety)

Panopticon

N=179SD=.61

Cruciform

N=759SD=.62

Wing

N=339SD=.64

Atrium

N=132SD=.69

High-rise

N=48SD=.63

Prison Project – Architecture (relationships with staff)

Series12.8

2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

2.99

3.213.25

3.32 3.31

Panopticon

N=176SD=.75

Cruciform

N=752SD=.72

Wing

N=326SD=.74

Atrium

N=132SD=.77

High-rise

N=48SD=.73

Prison Project - Architecture

• In high-rise design prisoners are most positive about the perceived autonomy, safety and relationships with staff

• In panopticon designs prisoners are least positive about the perceived autonomy, safety and relationships with staff

Prison Project - Employment

• Imprisonment limits employment opportunities and wages by 10 to 15 %

• Before imprisonment 62% did not work

• Within 6 months after release 50% has found a job

Prison Project – Employment (support during detention)

Prison Project – Employment (work in prison)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

tag

e

Niet gewerkt in detentie (25,6%) Wel gewerkt in detentie (74,4%)

Prison Project – Employment (vocational training)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

tag

e

Niet deelgenomen aan cursus(76,5%)

Wel deelgenomen aan cursus(23,5%)

Prison Project - Employment

• Likelihood of employment after imprisonment increased by:• Being employed before imprisonment• Short period of detention• Positive about support

• No impact:• Work in prison• Vocational training in prison

Aftercare

• Nieuwe Perspectieven bij Terugkeer (NPT) (New Perspectives at Re-entry), aftercare programme for adolescent and young adult detainees (16-24)

• RCT in Amsterdam, The Hague & Utrecht• Programme accredited by Dutch Accreditation Panel• Programme started in 2009• Part of evaluation: meta-analysis of similar programmes

elsewhere• Evaluation by University of Amsterdam & NSCR

Aftercare – Meta-Analysis

• Re-entry and aftercare programs• Excluded: external control and coercion only• Ages 10-30• Outcome measure: re-offending/recidivism• Various moderators: offender characteristics, program

characteristics, study characteristics• ‘Campbell approach‘: i.e. computerized databases,

search engines, cross-referencing biblioghraphies, hand searching, contacting authors

• Published and unpublished studies• Experimental and quasi-experimental designs (level 3-5

SMS)• 22 studies

Table 1: Linear Regression Analysis for Continuous Moderator Variables

Moderator variables N_winsorized K Beta Z p

Mean Age 4595 22 .42 9.16 .000

Age of First Arrest 1492 9 .07 1.01 .312

Number of Prior Arrests 1376 9 .09 1.36 .173

Proportion Minority 4595 22 .09 1.97 .048

Proportion Gang involvement 1642 8 .54 6.03 .000

Proportion of Drug Abusers 2356 14 -.22 -3.73 .000

Treatment Duration 3683 19 -.09 -1.46 .143

Treatment Intensity 2543 14 .27 5.01 .000

Publication Year 4595 22 .12 2.66 .008

Impact of Journal 2134 8 -.43 -7.87 .000

Study Quality 4595 22 .13 2.84 .005

Proportion Sample Attrition 3592 15 -.29 -5.68 .000

Attrition Difference 2856 13 .12 2.25 .024

Table 2: Univariate Analysis of Variancce for Categorical Moderator Variables

Moderator variables Number of respondents, N

Number of studies K 

Effect size d p 95% confidence interval

Q statisticbetween studies

p Q statisticwithin studies

p

Overall 4595 22 .12 .000 .09 to .15   476.38 .000

Proportion Males in Sample Mixed sample 50 – 95% Male sample > 95%

 25001939

 1011

 .07.19

 .000.000

 .03 to .11.14 to .23

15.98 .000  341.93118.47

 .000.000

Predominant Current Offense Violent Non-violent

 11762351

 611

 .29-.01

 .000.480

 .24 to .35-.05 to .03

73.69 .000  42.97271.02

 .000.000

Recidivism Risk Rating Moderate High

 11372527

 610

 .07.18

 .021.000

 .01 to .13.14 to .22

9.42 .002  38.53176.18

 .000.000

Treatment modality Systemic Individual Both

 73623551504

 2119

 .14.26-.10

 .000.000.000

 .07 to .22.21 to .30-.16 to -.05

67.70 .000  25.29105.08228.17

 .000.000.000

Treatment design Individual treatment Group therapy & individual therapy

 28711503

 147

 .23-.15

 .000.000

 .19 to .26-.20 to -.10

181.43 .000  147.94147.01

 .000.000

Treatment Combination Systemic / individual treatment Individual / individual treatment Individual / individual treatment & group therapy Systemic & Individual / individual treatment Systemic & Individual / individual treatment & group therapy

 73618382962971207

 28245

 .14.23.21.44-.23

 .000.000.000.000.000

 .07 to .22.18 to .27.10 to .33.33 to .56 -.29 to -.18

246.80 .000  25.2979.711.9724.5498.07

 .000.000.000.000.000

Start before release Yes No

 29021245

 164

 .12.13

 .000.000

 .08 to .16.07 to .18

.02 .877  355.86120.43

 .000.000

Study Design RCT Matched control group Quasi-experimental

 127014861839 

 967 

 .08.10.17 

 .005<.000.000

 .02 to .14.05 to .15.12 to .21 

6.45 .040  111.9181.77276.24 

 .000.000.000

Publication Source Article in journal Report Dissertation

 21381899562

 8122

 .15.08.14

 .000.001.001

 .11 to .20.03 to .12.06 to .23

6.42 .040  331.5785.2053.18

 .000.000.000

Implementation Does not mention implementation quality Assessed implementation, well implemented Assessed implementation, reported difficulties

 150717681320

 697

 .20.19-.07

 .000.000.000

 .15 to .25.14 to .24-.12 to -.01

64.87 .000  311.8750.2249.42

 .000.000.000

Time of Last Follow-up < 12 months ≥ 12 months

 3024293

 319

 .50.09

 .000.000

 .38 to 61.06 to .12

43.98 .000  14.89417.51

 .000.000

Nature of Control group No treatment Care as Usual

 3524012

 414

 .27.11

 .000.000

 .19 to .33.07 to .15

14.84 <.000  17.98397.98

 <.000.000

Pre-differences between treatment and control Yes No

 21092024

 129

 .06.12

 .000.003

 .02 to .11.07 to .16

2.51 .113  275.21164.29

 .000.000

Aftercare - Outcomes

• Overall: small positive effect on recidivism• Most effective if well implemented (limited attrition)• Individual treatment most effective• Intensity of programme important for effectiveness• Duration of programme of fewer importance• More effective for older youths• More effecyive for offenders at high risk of recidivism• Age of first arrest and number of prior arrests: no

influence• Higher level of drug abuse: smaller effect sizes• Starting aftercare before release from prison does not

increase effectiveness• Better quality of study smaller effect sizes

Electronic monitoring

• Strong increase• Short time outcomes: few incidents incl. reoffending• Long term outcomes: limited• Support vs. control• We know too little

Policy & Practice

• We need to know more• We need to know more details• We need to include more outcome measures• We need to have better designs (propensity score

matching)