Tuesday 8 August 2017

Trouble With SOTP 2

As can be seen from this article in Insidetime, at least one psychologist has grave doubts about what's going on:-    

SOTP bombshell

Call for all offending behaviour programmes to be reviewed following sex offender treatment programmes scandal

A little while ago a rumour surfaced that the UK Ministry of Justice had, very abruptly, stopped the Core and extended SOTP programmes. Expecting to find this was not true I contacted one of the few MoJ colleagues who will still speak to me (I have been a constant critic of these programmes for 13 years). The colleague told me that they were indeed being stopped, apparently as a result of research carried out by the MoJ itself. However, this was not publicised at the time, and it later emerged that Liz Truss, then the Justice Secretary, had ordered it kept secret. With the benefit of hindsight, it now looks as if she was just trying to delay the scandal until after the general election, as it must have been obvious that the secret would come out eventually. Quietly, on 30 June, the MoJ’s “secret” scientific report appeared on their website. It was a bombshell: it seemed to show not only that sex offender training was ineffective, but that it actually increased risk. What had happened? To answer that we need to go back in time to the early 1990s.

At that time crime rates were considerably higher than they are now (they have fallen considerably since). John Major’s government was concerned about crime levels and wondered whether the Home Office (which ran the criminal justice system then) could suggest ways of reducing them. At some point, a group of persuasive psychologists were able to convince Home Office ministers that new-fangled cognitive-behavioural programmes which were in use in North America might be the answer. More importantly, they persuaded ministers to provide the money. A national scheme for reducing offending by the use of programmes would require the hiring and training of a great many staff. Ministers agreed that the money would be provided, and that it would be ring-fenced to stop it being siphoned off for other purposes within the criminal justice system.

On a common sense basis cognitive-behavioural programmes had a lot of appeal. Common sense suggests that we behave the way we do because of the attitudes and beliefs that we hold. Therefore, changing these attitudes and beliefs should result in changes in behaviour. But psychologists of all people should be wary of such common sense interpretations, because these are not based on an understanding of the complexities of human behaviour and the brain functioning which underlies them. One of the things which has changed since the early 1990s is that we now know a great deal more about brain functioning. To be fair, it was realised at the time that these programmes ought to be evaluated to see how effective they were, and even that they should not be evaluated by the same people who carried out the “treatment”. Unfortunately, these good resolutions slipped. Evaluations of the programmes were few, generally not very well designed, and often carried out by people who had a vested interest in showing how good the programmes were. By this I don’t mean a crude financial interest, but people built careers and professional reputations on creating and running these programmes and it would be silly not to recognise that this colours their view.

As early as 2003 an important paper was published by Marnie Rice and Grant Harris, two Canadian psychologists of international repute. They showed that most evaluations of sex offender treatment were of poor quality, and contained a bias towards showing a treatment effect even if none existed. This research was generally ignored. When I began to quote it in parole reports from about 2004 I was greeted with disbelief. Indeed, I was the subject of a misconduct complaint for allegedly “misrepresenting the research on the effectiveness of sex offender programmes”. This was easily defeated by showing that my opinion was based securely on scientific evidence. This did not necessarily mean I was right, but it meant my position was defensible and therefore not misconduct. I have had to fight off two other such complaints since, and an attempt by MOJ lawyers to have me removed from a committee. Several colleagues have been bullied and discriminated against for taking a similar stand. In the meantime, things moved on. In 2005 the California Sex Offender Treatment Evaluation Project (SOTEP) published its report. This was a large and well-designed trial of a programme similar to the SOTP, and was hailed in advance as the study which was going to prove the effectiveness of this kind of programme beyond doubt. It showed no benefit of treatment, and colleagues committed to treatment programmes found all kinds of reasons to suggest that maybe the SOTEP study wasn’t very good after all.

Also in 2005 two academic researchers, Martin Schmucker and Friedrich Lösel, published a meta-analysis of sex offender treatment programmes. Meta-analysis is a powerful technique which combines the results of a number of research projects, effectively making them into one big project. This matters because the more people your study includes the more reliable it is likely to be. Schmucker and Lösel concluded that the results were “promising” and provided good support for sex offender programmes. Meta-analysis is an excellent way of showing what the research as a whole says in a particular field, but it is only as good as the studies that go into it. Unfortunately many of those that went into Schmucker and Lösel’s meta-analysis were not very good. They would not have passed the standards set by Rice and Harris in 2003. As computer programmers say, “garbage in, garbage out”. Interestingly, Schmucker and Lösel repeated this meta-analysis in 2015, using only good quality studies this time, and found no treatment effect for prison-based programmes.

And so to the study which has caused all the trouble, the “Impact Evaluation of the Prison-based Core Sex Offender Treatment Programme”. This study involved 2,562 men who had undergone the prison SOTP, and compared them with 13,219 who had not. To make sure that the two groups were as near identical as possible, they were matched on 87 different characteristics that might be related to risk. This is impressive: studies using matching are not uncommon, but usually only match groups on a few characteristics. Not only that, the researchers checked mathematically to make sure that the matching was very accurate. I have read thousands of papers, and rarely seen such close attention to this crucial part of the process. The men were followed up after release for an average of 8.2 years (some for over 13 years). Only 8% of the untreated men were convicted of further sexual offence during the follow-up period, compared with 10% of the treated men. In other words, the treated men were more likely to commit further sexual offences, not less. The MOJ was understandably horrified by this result, and called in Prof Friedrich Lösel (mentioned above) to provide an independent opinion on the quality of the study. It seems that Prof Lösel advised the results should be accepted, and was promptly told to say nothing in public.

What are the implications? There may well be some legal implications, but I am not qualified to comment on those, though I recognise that some will feel aggrieved if they have had parole refused, or made to serve extra time to undertake the SOTP to “reduce their risk”. They may feel further aggrieved to know that this fiasco was avoidable, if only the Parole Board and MOJ colleagues had listened to what I and other independent psychologists were telling them over a decade ago. Our opinions were based on scientific evidence which was already available then, and which we quoted to them, but they did not want to know, preferring to shoot the messenger rather than heed the evidence. The situation seems no better in other countries, and I have recently had numerous email exchanges with North American colleagues following the recent MOJ report. Overwhelmingly, even before reading it, they tend to find ways of minimising it and denying its importance. I am not optimistic that the MOJ research will have much impact on practice overseas, where cognitive-behavioural programmes are still popular.

The implications for SOTP-type programmes in the UK are clear, and the MOJ was wise to dump these immediately. There could clearly be no justification for continuing them. But what (if anything) should replace them? We are told that the Kaizen and Horizon programmes will be “offered” to men judged to pose a medium or high risk. However, the main difference between these programmes and their predecessors is that they will target different things. The so-called “cognitive-behavioural” methods will be the same, and other untested programmes such as HRP will continue. There is no evidence base for these programmes, and at most they should be trialled on a small scale and effectiveness demonstrated before being adopted nationally. Cognitive-behavioural methods are generally recognised as having helped in the treatment of depression and anxiety. However, there is no evidence that they are effective in changing patterns of behaviour as opposed to emotional states. There is no evidence that changing the attitudes and beliefs which people express to programme facilitators has any effect on subsequent behaviour. The reasons for this are complex, and there is no room to go into them here, though I do that in my forthcoming book.

My considered opinion is that all of the programmes and risk assessment methods used by the MOJ should be reviewed. It is virtually certain now that most of them do not do what is claimed. There are other ways of helping prisoners to give up a criminal lifestyle: education, trade training, restorative justice, support in the community, and good mental health care, to name but a few. It is time to change.


Dr Robert Forde

22 comments:

  1. Cognitive behavioural therapy does little to change someone's sexual preference which is an important factor here. An abhorrent preference where victim capability is minimised and absurd but a preference all he same.

    Agree with the final paragraph - there's needs to be a truthful empirical review of assessments and methods to match the caseload profile and the workload. OASys is no longer fit for purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "At some point, a group of persuasive psychologists were able to convince Home Office ministers that new-fangled cognitive-behavioural programmes which were in use in North America might be the answer. More importantly, they persuaded ministers to provide the money"

    Same old story. Interfering interested parties & their own selfish needs get in the way of real opportunity to effect change.

    OASys development & implementation suffered a similar fate, i.e. research, pilot & review were tailored to suit the political imperative; senior civil servants & Home Office psychologist imposed what political masters wanted as opposed to what the evidence demonstrated.

    Similarly the cottage-industry of "risk".

    Just as scandalous but unsurprising in these mendavious times:

    "... it later emerged that Liz Truss, then the Justice Secretary, had ordered it kept secret. With the benefit of hindsight, it now looks as if she was just trying to delay the scandal until after the general election..."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'mendacious', not ''mendavious"; sorry, sticky-toast fingers!

      Delete
  3. One only needs to type 'oasys' into the search box on this blog archive to find numerous discussions as to why OASys and its consequences have been such a friggin' nightmare. This from 2011:

    "What I find astonishing is that such a significant change in probation practice as the introduction of OASys should go ahead seemingly without full knowledge as to the consequeces in terms of man-hours required to operate it. Here is the Director of Human Resources at NOMS no less admitting that even eight or more years since it's full introduction, he either cannot or will not give an answer to such a basic question about OASys.

    I cannot think of another responsible organisation that would commit itself to such a radical change to working practices without first having quantified the likely effects in terms of resources required in order to implement it."

    And so it went, year after year, until the structure of an effective if slightly 'random' organisation (probation) was totally demolished by the interfering busy-bodies within 'the establishment' and their unhealthy obsessions with profit-and-loss, targets, money & control.

    THEY could probably benefit from some CBT...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is CBT the basis for the 'unique workshops' involved in CARA or is it something else?

    https://www.hamptontrust.org.uk/our-programmes/cara/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. About CARA

      CARA offers nominated individuals the opportunity to have an insight into the impact of domestic abuse and to identify their own needs for the future.

      The use of conditional cautions for domestic abuse offences is the first of its type in the country. Project CARA is an exemplary model of statutory and third sector agencies bringing their expertise together with a willingness to trial new approaches. Hampshire Constabulary has put their trust in The Hampton Trust to write and deliver the workshops whilst Cambridge University have deemed it worthy of a randomised controlled trial. This is the gold standard in terms of research and is the first of its type both nationally and internationally for testing this approach.

      The workshop delivered in the CARA experiment aims to improve the safety of individuals in households where a low severity domestic abuse offence has been identified by the police. Individuals are directed to the unique workshops designed and delivered by The Hampton Trust.

      Focused on increasing awareness of domestic abuse and potential impact on themselves, partners and children CARA offers participants an opportunity to take action and seek further support appropriate to their personal circumstances.

      Results from the experiment so far show both positive feedback from participants and a statistically significant impact on offending. Reoffending can be measured in a variety of different ways, taking into account both prevalence (the number of individuals committing further offences, regardless of the number of further offences committed) and frequency (the number of further offences committed). At twelve month post caution CARA is demonstrating a 64.6% lower prevalence of re-arrest and a 49.43% lower rate of re-arrest. For domestic offences that have resulted in charge, the trend is similar, with a 60% reduction being noted in the treatment group when compared to the control group. 94% of those attending the workshop report a change in attitude towards their partner and 91% report it has assisted with issues in their relationship.

      Feedback is overwhelmingly positive in terms of the anticipated change in behaviour from the perspective of the offender. Participants are clearly becoming more aware of domestic abuse triggers, and are confident that strategies provided in the workshops can assist with modifying their behaviour and therefore assisting them when faced with similar situations in future.

      Delete
  5. I remember very specific groups of people meant to attend accredited programmes in early 2000s. Specific ages, gender, offence types, OGRS scores required to be able to attend as those were the people the 'evidence' (so there must have been some) said the programmes (Think First, Drink Impaired Driving etc) would benefit.

    The programme manager in our team was then pressured to get more and more people on these programmes (we as a programmes team had targets to achieve) if we wanted to continue to exist.

    I raised it at the time - if you start moving away from the evidence and letting anyone on the programme, eventually the evidence will start to show that the programmes don't have any effect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Offending behaviour programmes are watered down to accommodate larger volumes of people, making them of no use to the people that might benefit from them, and of no purpose to those put on them that didn't really need them in the first place.

      'Getafix

      Delete
  6. We've known for a long time that OB programmes do not work in reducing risk. Yet the prevailing attitude seems to be "but it's all we've got so we have to use them" which is really rather stupid. Given that our understanding of human nature continues to increase we can certainly devise and test new programmes. Forcing prisoners to address risk through programmes that don't work is redundant and stupid. But then that's the MOJ all over.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I was placed on one of the OBP's. It was a booster programme, As there was not enough time apparently, for me to do the full SOTP. I had always hoped for some undercover reporter who could find away of making the content and the way the programme was delivered public. The one to one work I did was not as bad until it got repetitive or things I had said were either taken out of context or completely fabricated.

    Without the probation service support I received after release. I either would not be here or would no doubt have returned to prison. I can't stress that enough. But the programme did destroy a lot of trust, made me much more cynical and the final report would have churned the stomach of Hannibal Lector. Due to my apparent lack of ability to learn from the programme, I could have gained more from twenty minutes of any late night shopping channel. Whilst they are both patronising and spoon feed you useless information. The shopping channel does not beat you round the head with your offence every fifteen minutes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I lived through the cognitive-behavioural orthodoxy in probation. It was a type of thought control because there was no place for dissenting opinions. It was 'scientific' and therefore must be true and those with doubts were flat-earthers and Luddites.

    Scientific methods were also in vogue in the 50's to 'treat' homosexuals whose sexuality was 'distorted'. Times move on and the so-called distortions become part of the rich tapestry of life.

    It wasn't science, it was ideology and social attitudes that masqueraded as 'treatment'. Similarly with the cognitive-behavioural programmes: they gave voice to Prime Minister John Major's homily that 'society needs to condemn a little more and understand a little less.' The programmes fitted this reactionary agenda perfectly as they deflected attention from the social causes of crime and located the problems in the psychological deficits of the offender – a la Clockwork Orange. It was dumbed-down criminology and the probation service lapped it up. Careers prospered by being on-message and they slapped each others backs for being experts. I wonder how those experts now feel when in light of the research they look back and see that in overall terms their 'good works' made communities less safe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Treatment carries medical connotations.
      You treat people that's sick.
      You punish people that's bad.
      Is sex offending a mental condition that can be corrected with treatment?
      Or is it a criminal activity that should be met by way of punishment?
      Maybe someone could enligh me?

      Delete
    2. Isn't there another option?

      Delete
    3. I don't honestly know.
      But if SOTPs are crap, and I'm willing to accept that they are, then I'd be extremely interested to hear from those that have been through the process as to how sex offenders would be best served by the CJS.
      What's there now doesn't work, so tell me what would work, bearing in mind that the CJS has a relationship with not only the offender but also the victims of offences and a duty to society as well.

      Delete
    4. An awful lot of people who sexually abuse were themselves abused as children so you need to somehow stop the cycle of abuse. Plus in order to stop rape, for example, you need a wholesale adjustment in society of male attitudes towards women (as that is statistically how most rapes occur). Neither problem is a quick fix. Of course there are psychopaths who abuse because they have no moral compass and delight hurting people which is a separate problem altogether. A one size fits all treatment programme will never resolve the disparate issues and causes. What you need is long term individualised therapy but the government will never pay for that.

      Delete
  9. Forget programmes with bells and whistles that inflate the egos of practitioners and torment a captive audience. Focus on the choices people make and how they can be supported in all sorts of practical ways – health, educational, social, housing, employment, etc. - to make different choices.

    We all have to abide by the laws of the land, even when we think some are asinine and skewed. For those who sexually abuse, the stress should be on control, self-restraint strategies and victim awareness. Sexual drives cannot be eradicated, only sublimated.

    ReplyDelete
  10. After a quarter of a century in social work in several of it's myriad forms, I am convinced that the problem with 'evaluating' programmes is that the problem is not the programmes themselves but the reliance on any form of intervention as a 'one size fits all', 'if the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems appear to be nails' approach.

    Nothing works for everybody and everything works for somebody. The main thing is the relationships that are built between clients (there's that word again) and the professionals they are required to work with. The industry is still trying to identify that 'magic bullet' it says doesn't exist. I think the best mantra is 'it is not the tool you use that matters but the way that you use it'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This requires trust in professionals to do a conscientious job. Sadly, the professional ethic was systematically demeaned by managerialism which serves any prevailing ideology - and I mean any, regardless of ethics or values.

      'Give us the tools and we will finish the job'

      Delete
  11. A snippet of info that might catch the imagination from a research study being carried out by Plymouth Uni.
    I understand that if you left the service during the privatisation hiatus they'd be happy to consider talking to you.

    "Transforming Rehabilitation: The Impact of Austerity and Privatisation on Day-to-Day Cultures and Working Practices in ‘Probation’ _____________________________________________________________
    INFORMATION FOR PARTICIPANTS
    You are invited to participate in a research study being conducted through Plymouth University which is undertaken by Dr Jill Annison, Dr Sharon Beckett and Ms Samantha Walker. Before you decide whether or not you wish to take part, it is important for you to understand what the research will involve. Please take time to read the following information carefully. Please do not hesitate to contact us if there is anything that is unclear or if you would like any additional information about this research.

    What is the purpose of the study?
    The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of austerity and privatisation on the day-to-day cultures and working practices of the National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). In particular we are interested in finding out more about: When and how you started working in probation? What interested you in the role? How you felt about the recent changes to the structure of probation? What your thoughts and feelings towards Transforming Rehabilitation are? And, when and why you chose to leave your role?"

    Today's blog responses seem to suggest there is much to discuss...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A murder at a probation hostel in Derby at the weekend, and now this.
      http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/15461038.Inquiry_launched_after_rapist_strikes_in_Kidderminster_while_out_on_prison_licence/?ref=rss
      Someone will have to explain what's happening pretty soon.

      Delete
    2. POLICE have launched a urgent investigation into how a convicted rapist was able to attack another two women in Kidderminster, weeks after he was released on licence.

      West Mercia Police has commissioned a mandatory multi-agency serious case review to examine the offender management of 24-year-old Ashley Shuck – who was sentenced to life in prison on Monday (August 7) at Worcester Crown Court.

      Shuck had previously pleaded guilty to two counts of rape, two counts of sexual assault and one count of kidnapping. He has also been made the subject of a lifetime Sexual Harm Prevention Order and will be placed on the sex offender register for the rest of his life.

      On June 18, of this year, two women from Kidderminster reported that they had been sexually assaulted.

      A 28-year-old woman reported that she had been sexually assaulted early that morning at her friend’s home in the town.

      A 77-year-old woman reported that she had been raped at her home that morning and, afterwards, forced to drive around the county for more than two hours.

      At the time of these offences, Shuck was being managed by the National Probation Service on licence after his release from prison in May. He was subject to recall at the time of the offences, as his licence had been revoked.

      He had previously been jailed for eight years with a five-year extended licence period in 2012 for abducting and raping a 19-year-old girl and was therefore eligible for release after half his sentence – just one month before the rules changed, Worcester Crown Court heard.

      West Mercia Police assistant chief constable, Richard Moore, chairman of the Strategic Management Board for West Mercia MAPPA, said: “Following his release from prison in May 2017, Ashley Shuck was managed through multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA).

      A 28-year-old woman reported that she had been sexually assaulted early that morning at her friend’s home in the town.

      A 77-year-old woman reported that she had been raped at her home that morning and, afterwards, forced to drive around the county for more than two hours.

      At the time of these offences, Shuck was being managed by the National Probation Service on licence after his release from prison in May. He was subject to recall at the time of the offences, as his licence had been revoked.

      He had previously been jailed for eight years with a five-year extended licence period in 2012 for abducting and raping a 19-year-old girl and was therefore eligible for release after half his sentence – just one month before the rules changed, Worcester Crown Court heard.

      West Mercia Police assistant chief constable, Richard Moore, chairman of the Strategic Management Board for West Mercia MAPPA, said: “Following his release from prison in May 2017, Ashley Shuck was managed through multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA).

      *Ashley Shuck was sentenced to eight years with a five year extended licence period in November, 2012, for abducting and raping a 19-year-old girl and was therefore eligible for release after half his sentence - just one month before the rules changed, Worcester Crown Court heard.

      Delete
    3. Police are appealing for witnesses after the death of a man who was found injured in Derby.

      Officers from Derbyshire police have launched a murder investigation into the incident, which happened at an address in Bass Street, Derby, in the early hours of Sunday.

      Throughout the day, forensic and uniformed officers were at Burdett Lodge Probation Hostel in Bass Street and one of the entrances was cordoned off.

      A statement from the police said officers discovered the injured man after being called to an address in Bass Street. He was taken to Royal Derby Hospital where he later died.

      Details of the man's injuries have not been released but his friends claim that he suffered stab wounds.

      A 60-year-old man has been arrested.

      Senior investigating officer, DI Gemma Booth, said “This is an ongoing investigation and I would appeal for witnesses or anyone who has seen or heard anything suspicious to come forward.”

      A resident, who lives opposite the hostel, but did not want to be named, said he saw a man leave the hostel on a stretcher. He said: “I had just finished doing the gardening when I came inside, looked out and there were police everywhere.

      "There must have been eight cars and two ambulances. I saw a man on a stretcher come out with the paramedics and he looked in a very bad way. He had a lot of medical people with him and then the ambulance went.

      Delete