Children often answer questions when they do not have the requisite knowledge or when they do not understand them. We examined whether ground rules instruction—to say “I don’t know,” to tell the truth, and to correct the interviewer when necessary—assisted children in applying those rules during an interview about a past event and whether doing so was associated with more accurate accounts. We compared children with intellectual disabilities (mild or moderate severity, n = 44, 7–12 years) with 3 groups of typically developing children (2 matched for mental age, and 1 for chronological age, n = 55, 4–12 years) on their understanding of 3 ground rules, their use of these rules in an interview, and their accuracy in recalling a personally experienced event. Many children were able to demonstrate proficiency with the rules following simple instruction but others required additional teaching. Children applied the rules sparingly in the interview. Their scores on the practice trials of each rule were unrelated to each other, and to the use of the rules in context. Their developmental level was significantly related to both of these skills. Regression models showed that developmental level was the best predictor of children’s accuracy when they recounted their experience during the interview but that use of responses consistent with the rules, in conjunction with developmental level, predicted accurate resistance to suggestive questions. Future research should identify how best to prepare children of different ages and cognitive abilities to answer adults’ questions appropriately.

Background: People returning to the community after prison face many challenges, including finding suitable accommodation and employment, and accessing good social support. The prospects are particularly poor for high-risk offenders with up to a third of those released in New Zealand returning to prison within 100 days. Aims/hypotheses: We developed the Parole Experiences Measure (PEM) to quantify the quality of men's life experiences during the first weeks of re-entry from prison. We aimed to answer the question, can the quality of life experiences differentiate men who survive in the community without reconviction from those who do not? Methods: Using a longitudinal design, we examined whether PEM scores for 178 men with extensive histories of crime and violence predicted three recidivism indices (breach of parole, reconviction and reimprisonment) over a 12-month follow-up period. Results: We found that PEM scores predicted all three indices of recidivism. Of the two PEM subscales, external circumstances (finances, support, accommodation) were more predictive of recidivism than subjective wellbeing (mental and physical health).

<p>Individuals who have spent time in prison face a multitude of challenges during the transition from prison to the community, including finding suitable accommodation, obtaining stable employment, and establishing prosocial support networks (Bucklen & Zajac, 2009; Kubrin & Stewart, 2006; Zamble & Quinsey, 1997). The cumulative impact of these challenges makes it difficult to achieve successful reintegration to the community, yet some men are able to survive the difficult re-entry process without reoffending. What differentiates men who reoffend after release from those who succeed in remaining conviction-free? The present research went some way towards answering this question by investigating how the quality of an individual’s experiences after release from prison relates to the likelihood that he will achieve successful re-entry. A comprehensive measure, named the Parole Experiences Measure (PEM), was developed to assess the type and quality of high-risk parolees’ experiences during re-entry. The PEM was then used to examine whether experiences in the first two months after release predicted both short-term recidivism (i.e., recidivism in the first two months after release) and slightly longer-term recidivism (i.e., recidivism in the first year after release). Three indices of recidivism were examined, varying in severity from breaching a parole condition to committing an offence that resulted in reimprisonment. Logistic regression analyses revealed that the PEM significantly predicted three indices of short-term recidivism, demonstrating that men who had poorer experiences on parole were more likely to fail quickly after release than those who had better experiences. Further, the PEM significantly predicted reconvictions in the first year following release, after controlling for possible confounding variables. Additional analyses explored the relative contribution of different aspects of an individual’s parole experiences to the prediction of recidivism. In general, factors related to individuals’ external circumstances (e.g., accommodation, finances, personal support) were predictive of recidivism over and above factors related to their subjective wellbeing (e.g., mental health, physical health). The findings of this research demonstrate that men who have better experiences after release from prison, particularly with regard to their external circumstances, are significantly more likely to successfully avoid recidivism within their first year in the community. To our knowledge, this study was one of the first methodologically rigorous studies to explore the relationship between the quality of re-entry experiences and recidivism in a sample of New Zealand men at high risk of reoffending.</p>

<p>Individuals who have spent time in prison face a multitude of challenges during the transition from prison to the community, including finding suitable accommodation, obtaining stable employment, and establishing prosocial support networks (Bucklen & Zajac, 2009; Kubrin & Stewart, 2006; Zamble & Quinsey, 1997). The cumulative impact of these challenges makes it difficult to achieve successful reintegration to the community, yet some men are able to survive the difficult re-entry process without reoffending. What differentiates men who reoffend after release from those who succeed in remaining conviction-free? The present research went some way towards answering this question by investigating how the quality of an individual’s experiences after release from prison relates to the likelihood that he will achieve successful re-entry. A comprehensive measure, named the Parole Experiences Measure (PEM), was developed to assess the type and quality of high-risk parolees’ experiences during re-entry. The PEM was then used to examine whether experiences in the first two months after release predicted both short-term recidivism (i.e., recidivism in the first two months after release) and slightly longer-term recidivism (i.e., recidivism in the first year after release). Three indices of recidivism were examined, varying in severity from breaching a parole condition to committing an offence that resulted in reimprisonment. Logistic regression analyses revealed that the PEM significantly predicted three indices of short-term recidivism, demonstrating that men who had poorer experiences on parole were more likely to fail quickly after release than those who had better experiences. Further, the PEM significantly predicted reconvictions in the first year following release, after controlling for possible confounding variables. Additional analyses explored the relative contribution of different aspects of an individual’s parole experiences to the prediction of recidivism. In general, factors related to individuals’ external circumstances (e.g., accommodation, finances, personal support) were predictive of recidivism over and above factors related to their subjective wellbeing (e.g., mental health, physical health). The findings of this research demonstrate that men who have better experiences after release from prison, particularly with regard to their external circumstances, are significantly more likely to successfully avoid recidivism within their first year in the community. To our knowledge, this study was one of the first methodologically rigorous studies to explore the relationship between the quality of re-entry experiences and recidivism in a sample of New Zealand men at high risk of reoffending.</p>