15
In 1974 following the publication of an article by Martinson
18
in which he concluded that “nothing
worked” in efforts to rehabilitate offenders the pendulum swung away from psychological/psychiatric
interventions in favor of longer sentences and “hard time”. This outraged many in the
field and led to a flurry
of counter research claims. Sometime later Martinson‟s data was reanalyzed and he recanted his claim.
However, the damage was done and it took a long time before governments were
once again willing to invest
in offender rehabilitation. However, that didn‟t result in reducing the recidivism. As a reaction to the
Martinson‟s publication they went on to intense investigations for the successfulness of the treatment and
they came to researches with opposite evidence. Namely, it seems that the conclusion that nothing works
becomes one way for call for support of the rehabilitation. “The latter reviews thought the literature not only
encounter growth of the number of new experimental and quasi-experimental researches (95 published
between 1973 and 1978), but they also bring numerous positive conclusions for the effectiveness of the
offenders‟ therapy.”
19
During the 80s two significant accomplishments appear that strengthen the conclusion that the therapy
can be effective in considerably reducing the recidivism. Firstly, meta-analytic techniques for quantitative
summary of the extensive literature for the therapy are developed, which is estimated to contain around 500
articles up to 1990.
20
In 1989 Lipsey revised 400 articles on the psychological treatment of minor offenders
and gathered 443 evaluations for their effectiveness and discovered that the treatment, on average, reduces
the recidivism for 10%.
21
Anyway, when they incorporated the control for the methodological (size of the
example, exhaustion) and the therapeutic variables (duration, involvement of the estimator),
it turned out that
the recidivism is reduced for 30%. After the discovery of Lipsey‟s meta-analysis, 40 more meta-analysis
confirmed the wide effectiveness of the offenders‟ therapy.
22
The second big accomplishment is in the theory of the criminal behavior psychology. “Years on end
the social theories were dominant in the explanations for the criminal behavior, which found the reasons for
committing crime in the social structure and are more interested in explaining the total rate of crime than in
the individual criminal behavior.
23
In 1990, Andrews and his colleagues
24
encourage the doctors, the
investigators and the creators of politics to “rediscover” psychology in order to increase the effectiveness of
the corrective therapy. Their approach is behavioral and they think that the criminal behavior can be learned
in social context. The social support for the behavior and the thought subjected to criminal behavior are the
key factors, as well as the criminal history and the subordination of anti-social characteristics of the person
(impulsiveness, search for a thrill, egotism). Other influential factors are the family/marital functioning, drug
abuse, and the indicators for social accomplishments (education and employment). In
that sense,
they suggest
the following three principles as a key for effective therapy: a) the risk of redoing criminal acts principle; b)
the need principle: focusing on criminal needs in the therapy, and c) the principle of reaction: conducting the
therapy in a way that is appropriate for the way of learning and the capability of the offender.
Evidence-based practices in offender rehabilitation are derived from the “what works” literature base
which was synthesized by Andrews and Bonta in 1990 to create the risk-need-responsivity model (RNR) of
offender management, which is underpinned by a general personality and social learning theory of criminal
behavior which focuses on modelling and behavioral reinforcement. The primary aim of the risk-need
approach to offender rehabilitation is to reduce an offender‟s risk of re-offending and therefore protect the
community from further harm. This model advocates the use of actuarial risk assessment tools in conjunction
with professional discretion to determine an offender‟s risk of re-offending and posits that intervention gains
and hence community safety.
In the re-socialization, with creating programs for treatment it is taken into consideration that the
effect of the program lies in the connection between the programs and the criminality. In other words, when
a certain intervention that is appropriate for the risk and the need is conducted it can reasonably be expected
that a reduction of the behavior that leads to recidivism will take place. The starting point in defining any
18
Martinson R. (1974) W
hat works? – questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22 – 54.
19
Gendreau P., & Ross R. R. (1987) R
eviving of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s Justice Quarterly, 4, 349 – 408.
20
Andrews D. A. (2006)
Enhancing adherence to risk – need- responsibility: Making quality a matter of policy. Criminology and
Public policy, 5, 595 – 602.
21
Lipsey M. W. (1989, November)
The efficacy of intervention for juvenile delinquency: results from 400 studies, Paper presented at
the 41
st
annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, November, Reno NV
22
McGuire J. (2004).
Understanding psychology and crime: Perspectives on theory and action, Berkshire, England: Open University
Press.
23
Andrews D. A. & Bonita J. (1994)
The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
24
Andrews D. A., Bonita J. and Hoge R. D. (1990).
Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering Psychology,
Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 17, 19 – 52.