Risk‐Reducing Treatment in High‐Risk Psychopathic and Violent Offenders

Polaschek, Devon L. L.; Wong, Stephen C. P.

doi:10.1002/9781119315933.ch18

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A continuing challenge for researchers is identifying the specific program models and characteristics of group interventions (e.g., length) that are the most effective, as well as the demographic, psychological, and offence-related characteristics of individuals who reduce subsequent offending after participation, to determine what works for different types of offenders and how violence intervention programming can be most effectively delivered in accordance with individuals' specific risks, needs, and responsivity factors (RNR; Andrews et al, 2006;Andrews & Bonta, 2010;Bonta & Andrews, 2017;Olver et al, 2011;Palmer, 2017;Polaschek & Wong, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While individuals who commit violent offences are a small proportion of individuals who commit crimes overall, they are responsible for a large proportion of crime (Palmer, 2017). Violent offenders are likely to have both violent and nonviolent subsequent reoffences (Polaschek & Wong, 2020); therefore, reducing their recidivism is important for increasing public safety and community well-being. It is common for correctional authorities and parole boards to require that individuals who have committed violent offences participate in treatment programming prior to their release from custody or as a requirement of a community-based sentence (Daffern et al, 2018;Papalia et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The RNR model guides the assessment of risk to determine which individuals receive treatment, treatment goals, and how treatment will be delivered (Andrews et al, 2006). Extant research has demonstrated that interventions that follow the principles of RNR are most effective for reducing recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2010;Andrews et al, 2006;Bonta & Andrews, 2017;Olver et al, 2011;Palmer, 2017;Polaschek & Wong, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A meta-analysis of the effect of violence intervention programs on general and violent recidivism

Giesbrecht

2023

JCSWB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals with convictions for violence are likely to have both violent and nonviolent subsequent reoffences. Individuals who have committed violent offences are often required to participate in violence treatment programming prior to release. The aim of this study was to examine whether violence intervention programs offered in community or institutional correctional settings are effective for reducing general and violent recidivism among individuals with previous histories of violence. In total, 21 controlled studies with data from 17,223 violent offenders (99% men) were included in the meta-analysis for general recidivism, and 19 controlled studies with data from 8,863 offenders (99% men) were included in the meta-analysis for violent recidivism. This article extends an earlier meta-analysis by Papalia et al. (Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 26(2), 1–28 [2019]) by adding seven new studies to the meta-analysis of general recidivism and five new studies to the meta-analysis of violent recidivism. The results of the meta-analysis indicate that the odds of general recidivism were 25% lower, and the odds of violent recidivism were 24% lower for individuals who participated in interventions compared with the control groups. The results of the present study are consistent with previous meta-analyses, which support the use of correctional violence treatment programs. Implications for future research are identified, considering these findings.

show abstract