Outcome evaluation of an educational programme for preventing recidivism by adult firesetters

Abstract

Purpose In intervening to prevent recidivism by adult firesetters, there is a dearth of standardised interventions and relatedly of controlled outcome evaluations. Although education is a common firesetter intervention, it is unclear if this changes behaviour of adults; a research situation the current study aimed to address. Design/methodology/approach The rate of actual fire recidivism of participants of a standardised educational programme was compared using Cooke’s (1989) equation to expected rates based on the firesetting history of 93 referrals. Findings Results indicated a significant large effect for the difference between the frequencies of expected and actual firesetting re-offences. Research limitations/implications Limitations of the one-group pretest–posttest design are discussed with respect to potential confounds. Practical implications This paper adds to the literature on adult firesetter interventions and lends support to the use of fire education to prevent fire recidivism. It provides the first empirically validated example of a structured education programme for adult firesetters. Of interest to services piloting new intervention programmes, it reports an operationally efficient methodology for preliminary evaluation. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first reported outcome study of a fire safety education programme for adults. The methodology adopted represents a means of preliminary evaluation in safety-critical areas where traditional evaluation designs are infeasible.

Process evaluation of an educational programme for preventing recidivism by adult firesetters

“…Participants considered irrelevant those generalised interventions such as anger management and other cognitive-based therapies, as they failed to make clear the link between the skills taught and the original offending behaviour. The face validity of the FIRE-P may explain its high completion rate: 100% in the current participants and 79% in the outcome evaluation (Pearson et al , 2021).…”

“…The current study was the second stage of a sequential process of programme evaluation. Stage 1 aimed to measure effectiveness (see Pearson et al , 2021, this issue), whereas Stage 2 sought to explain why outcomes appear as they do. Process evaluation enhances the explanatory power of outcome evaluation (Medical Research Council, 2008), and qualitative analyses offer an ideal way to discover the processes that lead to change.…”