Introduction

Feeling Safe Standing strong was introduced to HMP Woodhill in February 2007. It aimed to work with short sentenced prisoners, to provide them with skills which may address their offending behaviour.

Feeling Safe Standing Strong is a group work programme based on protective behaviours.

“Protective behaviours is a practical and down to earth approach to personal safety. It is a process which encourages self empowerment and brings with it the skills to avoid being victimized by helping to raise self esteem and personal confidence; improving communication skills; developing problem solving skills; empowering people to make appropriate behavioural choices; enabling people to feel and keep themselves safe”

(Protectivebehaviours.co.uk)

Protective behaviours have been used to assist with victimisation. For instance, to provide children with strategies to avoid being sexually abused. It was first conceived in United States of America as abuse prevention and then widely practised in Australia, and is used by the police there (Protectivebehaviours.co.uk).

An aim of undertaking Feeling Safe Standing Strong at HMP Woodhill was to address offending behaviour, so analysis of the programme is based around the Risk Need and Responsivity principles (see Bonta and Andrews, 2007). It has been found that for offending behaviour programmes to be most effective they must meet the three following principles:

  • Risk principle: Match the level of service to the offender’s risk of re-offending
  • Need principle: Assess criminogenic needs and target them in treatment
  • Responsivity principle: Maximize the offender’s ability to learn from a rehabilitative intervention by providing cognitive behavioural treatment and tailoring the intervention to the learning style, motivation, abilities and strengths of the offender.

It has been found that if all three principles are adhered to, then recidivism can be reduced by up to 35 %, with this droppingifonly two and then one principle is adhered to.If none of the principles are adhered to offending behaviour intervention has been found to have little, and often negative effect on recidivism (Andrew and Bonta, 2006). Therefore, this report investigates how Feeling Safe Standing Strong adheres to the three principles to assess effectiveness.

Data

Four courses of Feeling Safe Standing Strong were completed at HMP Woodhill. Thirty four individuals started the course, with only twenty-five completing it. This was for a

variety of reasons, including prisoners prisoners being transferred to different establishments. Prisoners who attendedthe course were asked to sign a consent form to take part in the research. The procedure for the research was for individuals to complete pre course psychometrics and to repeat these after the course. Adjudication and IEP datawerealso collected; however, the number of these was so low that analysis was meaningless.

The following psychometrics were used:

  • Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Style (PICTS) (Walters, 1995a, 1995b)

This measures the extent of criminal thinking styles. A higher score indicates a greater need and therefore the desired change is a decrease in scores.

  • Locus of Control (LOC) (Craig, Franklin & Andrews, 1984)

This measures the extent to which individuals feel events in their life are either controlled by external factors or under their own control. The aim is to a move from an external to an internal locus of control. This is demonstrated byan increase in scores.

  • Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP) (Milne, 1992)

This measures difficulties that theindividual may have with relating to others. It is therefore hoped that scores decrease with intervention.

In total, thirty-one individuals agreed to take part in the research. However, seven did not complete the course, seventeen completed pre-course psychometrics andonlyten completed post-course psychometrics.

Information was gathered from Offender Assessment System (OASys) on individuals’ risk level and general offending information.This included individual’s Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS) percentage score. OASys is an assessment which gathers information on offenders which research have found to be related to their offending, criminogenic needs. The OGRS is a static risk assessment tool which predicts from a limited number of criminal history and demographic factors, the probability that an offender will be reconvicted within two years of release from custody or community sentence.

Evaluation

Risk principle:

The course was primarily targeted at short-term prisoners because of its relatively short duration and the lack of other interventions for this group of prisoners.Group members were not selected in terms of risk level.

Risk levels of individualswerecollated after the course, according to the ORGs and OASys. Treatment change on the PICTS (see later “need principle” section for explanation of this significant result) was found to be correlated with ORGs risk levels, but not OASys. Those who had lower risk level on the ORGs showed a higher level of change, according to the PICTS. This means that Feeling Safe Standing appears to have more of an impact with those with lower risk of recidivism. There was no correlation found with OASys risk level.

The number of individuals for which risk information was available and who were thereforeincluded in this analysiswas very small, meaning that this only gives suggestions of what might be occurring in terms of risk level. These results indicate that lower risk individuals benefit more, suggesting these individuals probably should be selected for the programme, rather than higher risk offenders. However, this does in part go against the risk principle, as this states resources should focus on those with higher risk levels. However, Feeling Safe Standing Strong is a relatively small dose of intervention.

Further research is needed to investigate the impact of risk and appropriate level of offenders who benefit the most. Overall, Feeling Safe Standing Strong appears to work best with lowrisk offenders.

Need principle:

Criminongenic Needs should be targeted for offending behaviour programmes to be effective. (See Andrews and Bonta, 2007). Andrews and Bontaidentified that the seven major criminogenic needs are:

  • Anti-social personality pattern
  • Pro-criminal attitudes
  • Social support for crime
  • Substance Abuse
  • Family/marital relationships
  • School/work
  • Absence of pro-social recreational activities

It is hypothesised that Feeling Safe Standing Strong targets the area of pro-criminal attitudes. It is thought Feeling Safe Standing Strong targeted pro-criminal attitudes by the emphasis on respecting everyone and the need for everyone to feel safe. The psychometric measures used to investigate this were the PICTS, LOC and IIP.

Comparison between before and after the course demonstrated a significant change in PICTS scores, which provides evidence that Feeling Safe Standing Strong made a significant difference to criminal attitudes. This is an exceptionally positive finding considering the small sample size.

The LOC and IIP psychometric data did not show any noticeable changes pre, compared to post course. The sample size was so small that these findings are inconclusive and further research is needed, with a bigger sample size.

Group members were not selectedaccording toneed for the course. It would be useful to develop this and investigate the impact better targetinghas on treatment change. Overall, there has been a positive treatment change in terms of criminal thinking styles associated with completing Feeling Safe Standing Strong.

Responsivity principle:

The responsivity principle has two parts to it:

  • General responsivity – cognitive social learning methods
  • Specific responsivity – takes into account strengths, learning style, personality, motivation and bio-social characteristics of the individual

(Andrews and Bonta, 2007).

Feeling Safe Standing Strong did not directly use cognitive social learning methods, however, there were similarities between thesemethods and the methods used on the course. For instance,Feeling Safe Standing Strong exploredthe impact of thinking on behaviour. It would be useful to consider how Feeling Safe Standing Strong could use further techniques from cognitive social learning methods so that itmeetsthis principle. However, the methods it did use have appeared to make a positive impact on criminal attitudes, suggesting they did meet the responsivity principle.

It is not possible to know how course facilitators responded to individual responsivity issues. For this, qualitative interviews are planned with some of the course completers.

Responsivity is an area that needs further investigation.

Discussion

Feeling Safe Standing Strong hasachieved positive treatment change in terms of criminal thinking styles, with there being a reduction in these thinking styles. The research was limited by the small sample and incomplete data collected, with many areas needing further investigation. The high non-completer rateis concerning and needs addressing for Feeling Safe Standing Strong tomaximise its potentialfor making positive change. Initial results suggest low risk prisoners may benefit more from Feeling Safe Standing Strong,but further investigation is needed. Risk and Need assessments were not undertaken before the course. Implementing such assessments in the future could be beneficial. Further research is needed to assess responsivity in Feeling Safe Standing Strong. Overall, Feeling Safe Standing strong has been shown to have a positive impacton those that complete it. However, further recommendations are made to continue investigating the impact of the course and to develop the course in line with Risk, Need and Responsivity principles.

Recommendations

  • More structured selection to incorporate OASys assessment with the aim of identifying risk and need for potential participants of Feeling Safe Standing Strong.
  • Qualitative research to investigatetheResponsivity principle.
  • Further research to investigate the effect of offence type and risk of recidivism on the positive impact of Feeling Safe Standing Strong.
  • More structured research to be incorporated into course, ensuring all measures are completed and identified.
  • Continued research on behavioural change to see if the psychometric change is also demonstrated in behavioural change

Rachel Lynds, Trainee Psychologist

References

Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2007) Public Safety Canada Corrections Research: User Report 2007-06.

Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2006) The Psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.)Newark, NJ: LexisNexis.

Craig, A.R., Franklin, J.A., & Andrews, G. (1984) A scale to measure locus of control of behaviour. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 57, 173-180.

Milne, D. (1992) Interpersonal Difficulties. Nfer-Nelson.

Walters, G.D. (1995a) The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles: Part I: Reliability and Preliminary Validity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 307-325.

Walters, G.D. (1995b) The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles: Part II: Identifying Simulated Response Sets. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 307-325.

1