1. The Intended & Unintended Outcomes of Detention Criminal Justice Platform Brussels, 18 September 2014 Peter van der Laan NSCR & VU University Amsterdam Email contacts: adirkzwager@nscr.nl p.nieuwbeerta@law.leidenuniv.nl

2. What do you know about detention? Purposes Outcomes

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

4. Outcomes …….. Intended Unintended

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

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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!

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

11. Prison Project – Mental Health (BSI) PrisonersGeneral population M1M1 SDM1M1 BSI total score0.690.700.350.33 Somatic complaints0.520.760.290.40 Cognitive problems0.800.870.510.52 Depressive problems0.820.960.370.46 Anxiety0.680.830.310.40

12. Prison Project – Mental Health (BSI) PrisonersGeneral population M1M1 SDM1M1 Hostility0.610.770.380.43 Phobic anxiety0.440.700.150.29 Paranoid thoughts1.050.890.520.56 Psychoticism0.620.750.300.39 Interpersonal sensitivity 0.580.800.360.47

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

14. Prison Project - Drugs PrisonersGeneral population % Current smoker7724 Former smoker841 Never smoker1536 Drugs – ever used74 Drugs – last 12 months59 Cannabis Cocaine Heroin 46 21 7 10 2 0.1 (Almost) daily use27

15. Prison Project – Alcohol (Heavy Drinker)

16. 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

17. 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

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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. Prison Project – Employment (support during detention)

25. Prison Project – Employment (work in prison)

26. Prison Project – Employment (vocational training)

27. 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

28. 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

29. Aftercare – Meta-Analysis Re-entry and aftercare programs Excluded: external control and coercion only Ages 10-30 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

30. Table 1: Linear Regression Analysis for Continuous Moderator Variables Moderator variablesN_winsorizedKBetaZp Mean Age459522.429.16.000 Age of First Arrest14929.071.01.312 Number of Prior Arrests13769.091.36.173 Proportion Minority459522.091.97.048 Proportion Gang involvement16428.546.03.000 Proportion of Drug Abusers235614-.22-3.73.000 Treatment Duration368319-.09-1.46.143 Treatment Intensity254314.275.01.000 Publication Year459522.122.66.008 Impact of Journal21348-.43-7.87.000 Study Quality459522.132.84.005 Proportion Sample Attrition359215-.29-5.68.000 Attrition Difference285613.122.25.024

31. 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 Overall459522.12.000.09 to.15 476.38.000 Proportion Males in Sample Mixed sample 50 – 95% Male sample > 95% 2500 1939 10 11.07.19.000.03 to.11.14 to.23 15.98.000 341.93 118.47.000 Predominant Current Offense Violent Non-violent 1176 2351 6 11.29 -.01.000.480.24 to.35 -.05 to.03 73.69.000 42.97 271.02.000 Recidivism Risk Rating Moderate High 1137 2527 6 10.07.18.021.000.01 to.13.14 to.22 9.42.002 38.53 176.18.000 Treatment modality Systemic Individual Both 736 2355 1504 2 11 9.14.26 -.10.000.07 to.22.21 to.30 -.16 to -.05 67.70.000 25.29 105.08 228.17.000 Treatment design Individual treatment Group therapy & individual therapy 2871 1503 14 7.23 -.15.000.19 to.26 -.20 to -.10 181.43.000 147.94 147.01.000 Treatment Combination Systemic / individual treatment Individual / individual treatment Individual / individual treatment & group therapy Systemic & Individual / individual treatment & group therapy 736 1838 296 297 1207 28245 28245.14.23.21.44 -.23.000.07 to.22.18 to.27.10 to.33.33 to.56 -.29 to -.18 246.80.000 25.29 79.71 1.97 24.54 98.07.000 Start before release Yes No 2902 1245 16 4.12.13.000.08 to.16.07 to.18.02.877 355.86 120.43.000 Study Design RCT Matched control group Quasi-experimental 1270 1486 1839 967 967.08.10.17.005 <.000.000.02 to.14.05 to.15.12 to.21 6.45.040 111.91 81.77 276.24.000 Publication Source Article in journal Report Dissertation 2138 1899 562 8 12 2.15.08.14.000.001.11 to.20.03 to.12.06 to.23 6.42.040 331.57 85.20 53.18.000 Implementation Does not mention implementation quality Assessed implementation, well implemented Assessed implementation, reported difficulties 1507 1768 1320 697 697.20.19 -.07.000.15 to.25.14 to.24 -.12 to -.01 64.87.000 311.87 50.22 49.42.000 Time of Last Follow-up < 12 months ≥ 12 months 302 4293 3 19.50.09.000.38 to 61.06 to.12 43.98.000 14.89 417.51.000 Nature of Control group No treatment Care as Usual 352 4012 4 14.27.11.000.19 to.33.07 to.15 14.84<.000 17.98 397.98 <.000.000 Pre-differences between treatment and control Yes No 2109 2024 12 9.06.12.000.003.02 to.11.07 to.16 2.51.113 275.21 164.29.000

32. 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

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

34. 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)