The Intended & Unintended Outcomes of Detention Criminal Justice Platform Brussels, 18 September 2014 Peter van der Laan NSCR & VU University Amsterdam contacts:

What do you know about detention? Purposes Outcomes

Purposes Protection by incapacitation Retribution General Prevention Special (individual) prevention Rehabilitation (resocialisation, reintegration)

Outcomes …….. Intended Unintended

Today Outcomes Intended and unintended Research-based Detention (Prison Project) Aftercare Electronic monitoring Dutch examples

Prison Project - design Large Scale Longitudinal Panel Study: 1,909 men (ages 18-65) taken into pre-trial detention in all 26 prison in The Netherlands from October 2010 to March 2010 Interviewed within 3 weeks after prison entry subsequently interviewed over a long-term follow-up period, i.e. both in detention and/or post-release We are interested in: life before imprisonment experience of imprisonment consequences of imprisonment

Prison Project - Focus Employment Physical and psychological health Social networks Life in prison Prison circumstances Interventions in prison Sentencing Probation, parole Marriage and divorce Wellbeing of partners Wellbeing of children Deterrence, reofffending Leiden University, NSCR, Utrecht University Team of 15 researchers & 100+ interviewers (students)

Prison Project - Organization Leiden University, NSCR, Utrecht University Team of 15 researchers & 100+ interviewers (students) Over 2m Euro Dutch Science Foundation Universities & NSCR Ministry of Security and Justice Dutch Prison Service Dutch Probation Service Council for the Judiciary Dutch Prison Museum

Prison Project - Health Why? High prevalence of health problems Correctional institutions are seen as reservoirs of physical and mental health problems which will flow back in the community once prisoners are released Correctional institutions offer an important opportunity to improve prisoners’ health (also benefit public health) We know Prison populations experience serious mental and physical health problems We don’t know Whether and how imprisonment is affecting the health of people entering prison Longitudinal studies help!

Prison Project – General Health Status How would you describe your health?

Prison Project – Mental Health (BSI) PrisonersGeneral population M1M1 SDM1M1 BSI total score Somatic complaints Cognitive problems Depressive problems Anxiety

Prison Project – Mental Health (BSI) PrisonersGeneral population M1M1 SDM1M1 Hostility Phobic anxiety Paranoid thoughts Psychoticism Interpersonal sensitivity

Prison Project – Physical Health PrisonersGeneral population % Fatigue3423 Migraine2010 Back problem/ hernia169 Intestinal complaints (longer than 3 months) 42

Prison Project - Drugs PrisonersGeneral population % Current smoker7724 Former smoker841 Never smoker1536 Drugs – ever used74 Drugs – last 12 months59 Cannabis Cocaine Heroin (Almost) daily use27

Prison Project – Alcohol (Heavy Drinker)

Prison Project - Health Prisoners have diverse – pre-existing – health problems at admission in prison: A worse health compared to general population A more unhealthy life style Less access to dentists and medical specialists but more contact with psychological health care

Prison Project - Health Outcome: Health of prisoners improves Even within relatively short time After prison: can deteriorate easily and shortly care Caveat: in NL detention relatively short

Prison Project - Architecture Are prison design characteristics related to how inmates perceive their autonomy, safety and relationships with staff?

Prison Project – Architecture (autonomy) Panopticon N=181 SD=.69 Cruciform N=759 SD=.68 Wing N=332 SD=.70 Atrium N=133 SD=.72 High-rise N=49 SD=.72

Prison Project – Architecture (safety) Panopticon N=179 SD=.61 Cruciform N=759 SD=.62 Wing N=339 SD=.64 Atrium N=132 SD=.69 High-rise N=48 SD=.63

Prison Project – Architecture (relationships with staff) Panopticon N=176 SD=.75 Cruciform N=752 SD=.72 Wing N=326 SD=.74 Atrium N=132 SD=.77 High-rise N=48 SD=.73

Prison Project - Architecture In high-rise design prisoners are most positive about the perceived autonomy, safety and relationships with staff In panopticon designs prisoners are least positive about the perceived autonomy, safety and relationships with staff

Prison Project - Employment Imprisonment limits employment opportunities and wages by 10 to 15 % Before imprisonment 62% did not work Within 6 months after release 50% has found a job

Prison Project – Employment (support during detention)

Prison Project – Employment (work in prison)

Prison Project – Employment (vocational training)

Prison Project - Employment Likelihood of employment after imprisonment increased by: Being employed before imprisonment Short period of detention Positive about support No impact: Work in prison Vocational training in prison

Aftercare Nieuwe Perspectieven bij Terugkeer (NPT) (New Perspectives at Re-entry), aftercare programme for adolescent and young adult detainees (16-24) RCT in Amsterdam, The Hague & Utrecht Programme accredited by Dutch Accreditation Panel Programme started in 2009 Part of evaluation: meta-analysis of similar programmes elsewhere Evaluation by University of Amsterdam & NSCR

Aftercare – Meta-Analysis Re-entry and aftercare programs Excluded: external control and coercion only Ages Outcome measure: re-offending/recidivism Various moderators: offender characteristics, program characteristics, study characteristics ‘Campbell approach‘: i.e. computerized databases, search engines, cross-referencing biblioghraphies, hand searching, contacting authors Published and unpublished studies Experimental and quasi-experimental designs (level 3-5 SMS) 22 studies

Table 1: Linear Regression Analysis for Continuous Moderator Variables Moderator variablesN_winsorizedKBetaZp Mean Age Age of First Arrest Number of Prior Arrests Proportion Minority Proportion Gang involvement Proportion of Drug Abusers Treatment Duration Treatment Intensity Publication Year Impact of Journal Study Quality Proportion Sample Attrition Attrition Difference

Table 2: Univariate Analysis of Variancce for Categorical Moderator Variables Moderator variablesNumber of respondents, N Number of studies K Effect size dp95% confidence interval Q statistic between studies pQ statistic within studies p Overall to Proportion Males in Sample Mixed sample 50 – 95% Male sample > 95% to to Predominant Current Offense Violent Non-violent to to Recidivism Risk Rating Moderate High to to Treatment modality Systemic Individual Both to to to Treatment design Individual treatment Group therapy & individual therapy to to Treatment Combination Systemic / individual treatment Individual / individual treatment Individual / individual treatment & group therapy Systemic & Individual / individual treatment & group therapy to to to to to Start before release Yes No to to Study Design RCT Matched control group Quasi-experimental < to to to Publication Source Article in journal Report Dissertation to to to Implementation Does not mention implementation quality Assessed implementation, well implemented Assessed implementation, reported difficulties to to to Time of Last Follow-up < 12 months ≥ 12 months to to Nature of Control group No treatment Care as Usual to to < < Pre-differences between treatment and control Yes No to to

Aftercare - Outcomes Overall: small positive effect on recidivism Most effective if well implemented (limited attrition) Individual treatment most effective Intensity of programme important for effectiveness Duration of programme of fewer importance More effective for older youths More effecyive for offenders at high risk of recidivism Age of first arrest and number of prior arrests: no influence Higher level of drug abuse: smaller effect sizes Starting aftercare before release from prison does not increase effectiveness Better quality of study smaller effect sizes

Electronic monitoring Strong increase Short time outcomes: few incidents incl. reoffending Long term outcomes: limited Support vs. control We know too little

Policy & Practice We need to know more We need to know more details We need to include more outcome measures We need to have better designs (propensity score matching)