The Wiley Handbook of What Works in Correctional Rehabilitation E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2024

Beschreibung

Theory, assessment, and treatment strategies for offenders across forensic populations, with practical examples and discussion of often overlooked cultural considerations

The Wiley Handbook of What Works in the Rehabilitation of People Who Have Offended comprehensively outlines effective rehabilitation strategies for offenders while acknowledging the challenges in implementation and discussing ethical considerations, potential biases, and the need for ongoing evaluation. The book introduces the current state of effective practices, outlines up-to-date risk assessment processes for various crime types, investigates effective treatments for diverse forensic populations, explores treatments for those in prison and mental health settings, and examines the often-overlooked cultural factors influencing rehabilitation efforts.

This Second Edition, expanded from 25 to 32 chapters, has been written by leading researchers, seasoned professionals, and academics, providing a wealth of expertise and diverse perspectives. Each chapter offers a well-researched and balanced review of existing literature, laying a solid foundation for comprehending the effectiveness of various rehabilitation approaches. Practical examples enhance the content's applicability, emphasizing evidence-based practices crucial for accountability and effectiveness in the criminal justice system.

Some of the sample topics discussed in The Wiley Handbook of What Works in the Rehabilitation of People Who Have Offended include:

• Risk, Need, and Responsivity principles used in the assessment and triage of offenders and evidence for the Good Lives Model in supporting rehabilitation and desistance from offending
• Recidivism risk in people convicted of intimate partner violence and treatment of aggressive and problematic adjudicated youth in a secure psychiatric setting
• Treatment of persons convicted of sexual offenses in the community, including online offending
• Strategies to prevent and reduce gang involvement and rehabilitation of intellectually disabled individuals who have harmful sexual behavior

Offering a valuable evidence-based coverage in the pursuit of effective rehabilitation strategies, the Second Edition of The Wiley Handbook of What Works in the Rehabilitation of People Who Have Offended is an indispensable resource for anyone involved in the criminal justice system, including professionals, policymakers, researchers, and students.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Cover

Table of Contents

Series Page

Title Page

Copyright Page

Dedication Page

About the Editors

List of Contributors

Foreword

Acknowledgements

Part I: Introduction

1 What Works in Correctional Rehabilitation

10 Years On

Introduction

Conclusions

References

2 Public Support for a New Correctional Era

Introduction

Punitiveness in America: Making Offenders Pay

Rehabilitation in America: From Lawbreaker to Law‐Abider

Policy Reform in America: Making Reintegration Possible

Conclusion: Public Support for a New Era of Corrections

References

Part II: What Works in the Assessment of Those Who Have Offended

3 Using Case Formulation Techniques for the Explanation and Prediction of Crime

Introduction and Definitions

Relationship Between Risk Assessment and CF

Cognitive‐Behavioural Case Formulation and Offending Behaviour

The Idea of Applied Criminology and Its Potential Relevance to CF

A Forensic‐Psychological Approach to CF

CF and Risk Assessment: CAFIRA

Conclusions

References

4 How the Risk, Need and Responsivity Principles Are Being Used in the Assessment and Triage of Individuals Who Have Offended

Introduction

RNR Principles

Putting RNR into Practice

Conclusions and Future Directions

References

5 What Works in Assessing Recidivism Risk in People Convicted of Intimate Partner Violence

Introduction

IPV Risk Assessment: Definition and Overview

Why Do Dynamic Factors Matter? Dynamic IPV Assessment Considerations in Research and Practice

IPV Risk Tool Applications to Ethnoculturally Diverse Groups

Tying It All Together: Some Recommendations for IPV Risk Assessment

Conclusions

References

6 What Works in the Assessment of Risk and Treatment Need in Young People Who Offend

Introduction

Assessing Risk and Treatment Need in Young People: A Historical Perspective

Exploring the Efficacy of Contemporary Risk Assessment Approaches for Young People in the Context of the RNR Principles

Conclusions

References

7 What Works in Violence Risk Assessment in Forensic Settings

Introduction

Conclusion

References

8 What Works in Assessing Recidivism Risk in Men Convicted of Contact Sexual Offenses

Structured Versus Unstructured Assessment

Advances in Static Risk Assessment

Psychological Risk Factors

Relation Between Static and Psychological Risk Factors

Propensities and the Theory of Dynamic Risk

Summary and Future Directions

References

9 What Works in the Assessment of Recidivism Risk for People Convicted of Child Sexual Exploitation Material Offences?

Introduction

Characteristics of CSEM Individuals

Assessing CSEM Individuals

Risk Assessment Measures

Conclusions

References

10 What Works in the Assessment of Stalking Threat and Risk of Harm

Introduction

An Overview of Stalking Risk Assessment

Risk Factors for Different Stalking Outcomes

Future Directions in the Assessment and Management of Stalking Behaviours

References

Part III: What Works in the Rehabilitation of Those Who Have Offended

11 Rehabilitation and Processes of Change

Introduction

Change Processes

Concepts of Desistance

Change Processes and Identity

References

12 Working with Neurodiversity in Forensic Rehabilitation Interventions

Introduction

Defining Important Terms

Approaches to Understanding Neurodiversity

Accredited Offending Behaviour Programmes

Conclusion

References

13 What Works in the Treatment of Persons Convicted of Sexual Offences in the Community (Including Online Offending)

Introduction

What Works

Conclusions

References

14 What Works to Prevent and Reduce Gang Involvement?

Introduction

Primary Prevention

Secondary Prevention

Tertiary Interventions

Reviewing Good Lives Plan

Conclusions

References

15 What Works in the Rehabilitation of People Who Set Deliberate Fires?

Introduction

Why Do Adults Set Fires? Theoretical Developments

The Treatment Needs of Adults Who Set Fires

Evidence‐Based Treatment for Firesetting

Conclusions

References

16 What Works in Reducing Re‐offending Among Persons Who Misuse Substances or Are Substance Dependent

Introduction

Conclusion

References

17 What Works for Women in Custodial Settings

Introduction

Conclusions

References

18 What Works with Women Who Have Convictions for Sexual Offences

Introduction

Overview of the Nature of Sexual Offending by Women

What Works in the Assessment and Treatment of Women Convicted of Sexual Offences

Assessing Risk of Sexual Recidivism in Women

A Final Word on Gender‐Responsive Interventions for Women Who Have Convictions for Sexual Offences

References

19 What Works in Reducing Intimate Partner Violence Recidivism

Introduction

Interventions for IPV

Traditional Explanations of IPV

Principles of Effective Interventions: Risk, Need and Responsivity (RNR)

Conclusion and Possible Future Directions

References

20 Youth Offending Interventions

Introduction

An Overview of Effective Interventions for Child and Youth Offending, and Disruptive or Antisocial Behaviour

Conclusions

References

21 What Works with People with Intellectual Disabilities Who Have Harmful Sexual Behaviour

Introduction

Harmful Sexual Behaviour and Intellectual Disabilities

Prevalence of Harmful Sexual Behaviour Among People with Intellectual Disabilities

Characteristics of Men with Intellectual Disabilities and HSB

Early Behavioural and Pharmacological Treatments for HSB in Men with ID

The Emergence of Cognitive Behavioural Treatment for Men Without ID

Cognitive Behavioural Treatment for Men with ID

Risk Factors for Re‐offending

Service User Views

Conclusions

References

22 Evidence for the Good Lives Model in Supporting Rehabilitation and Desistance from Offending

Introduction

The GLM Practice Framework

Empirical Support for the Effectiveness of GLM‐Informed Interventions

Implications for Future Research

Conclusions

References

Part IV: What Works in Secure Settings

23 What Works in the Treatment of Men Whose Behaviour Poses High Risk in the Context of Mental Disorder?

Introduction

What Is Known About Individuals with Mental Disoder Who Offend?

Relational Psychotherapeutic Practice

Conclusions

References

24 Psychologically Informed Planned Environments

Personality‐Disordered Offenders in Criminal Justice Settings – A Public Health Problem?

Therapeutic Responses to Personality Disorder in Prison

The OPD Pathway: Tackling Wicked Problems of Rehabilitation

PIPEs: Evidence

PIPEs: A Solid Future?

References

25 Maximising Treatment Outcomes with Persons Convicted of Sexual Offences Who Are in Secure Settings

Introduction

The Prevention Spectrum

Enhancing Outcomes in Secure Settings

Conclusions and Recommendations

References

26 Treatment of Aggressive and Problematic Adjudicated Youth in a Secure Psychiatric Setting

Introduction

Theoretical Foundation

The Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center

Conclusions

References

27 Working with Clinically Relevant In‐Treatment Presentations in a Trauma and Diversity Responsive Way

Introduction

Offence‐Paralleling Behaviour (OPB) and Positive/Prosocial Alternative Behaviour (PAB)

Sources of Warranty for Formulation‐derived Causal Models

Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory: A Framework for Conceptualising the Impact of Current and Past Offending‐Relevant Trauma and Adversity

Objectification as Common Denominator in Victim Perpetrator Link: Being Treated as an Object and Treating Others as Objects

Example (Fictional Account) – Paul

Conclusions

References

Part V: Cultural Factors and Individualised Approaches in the Rehabilitation of Those Who Have Offended

28 Case Management in the Community

Introduction

Complexity and Personality Problems

Essential Practitioner Knowledge, Attitudes and Skills

Essential Service Requirements

Challenges and Hurdles, and How to Try to Overcome Them

Evaluation

Concluding Comments and Recommendations

References

29 Cultural Considerations in the Assessment of Risk Factors for Sexual Recidivism

Introduction

Future Directions and Conclusions

References

30 Cultural Considerations for Treatment of Persons Convicted of Sexual Offences

Introduction

Conclusions

References

31 Cultural Factors in the Development and Delivery of Offender Rehabilitation Programmes in Aotearoa New Zealand

Introduction

The New Zealand Correctional Context

Why Culture Matters in the Design and Delivery of Rehabilitation Programmes

Cultural Factors in the Development and Delivery of Rehabilitation: Case Examples

Closing Thoughts

References

Index

End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Chapter 4

Table 4.1 Comparison of number of items and psychometric priorities of need...

Chapter 6

Table 6.1 Purpose and content of measures referred to

Chapter 12

Table 12.1 Categories of neurodivergence

Chapter 14

Table 14.1 Overview of primary goods

Table 14.2 Motivational factors for gang membership according to primary go...

Chapter 16

Table 16.1 Studies published between 1999 and 2023 that examine the impact ...

Table 16.2 Studies published between 1999 and 2023 examining the impact of ...

Table 16.3 Studies published between 1999 and 2023 examining the impact of ...

Table 16.4 Studies published between 1999 and 2023 examining the impact of ...

Chapter 17

Table 17.1 Top 10 principles of what works for women in custody

Table 17.2 Daly's pathway model: five (women‐derived) pathways to the justi...

Table 17.3 Ten central reintegration needs of justice‐impacted women

Chapter 20

Table 20.1 Culturally relevant programmes and the evidence base: a snapshot...

Chapter 22

Table 22.1 The Good Lives Model practice framework

Chapter 25

Table 25.1 Continuum of tertiary prevention settings for individuals convic...

Chapter 27

Table 27.1 COR resource qualities and ‘good lives’

Table 27.2 Offending, paralleling behaviour and objectification

Table 27.3 Normal waking and trauma‐related states of consciousness

Table 27.4 States of consciousness and relationship to the world and to oth...

Table 27.5 State transition probability matrix

Table 27.6 Index offence stages and similar themes in another offence

Table 27.7 Psychological processes at different stages of offence and devel...

Table 27.8 Illustration of analysis of the incremental impact of racist tra...

Table 27.9 Offence‐paralleling behaviour (OPB) and prosocial alternative be...

Table 27.10 Looking at offence‐paralleling contexts linked with themes

Table 27.11 Offence‐paralleling contexts after release

Chapter 28

Table 28.1 Standards for consultation

Table 28.2 A checklist to support the evaluation of case formulation qualit...

Table 28.3 A checklist to support the evaluation of risk formulation qualit...

Table 28.4 Eight characteristics that services for people who have offended...

Table 28.5 Variables and suggested evaluation questions and methods for ser...

Chapter 31

Table 31.1 Phases of cultural assessment

List of Illustrations

Chapter 3

Figure 3.1 Forensic CAse Formulation Incorporating Risk Assessment (CAFIRA–F...

Chapter 12

Figure 12.1 Expected distribution of neurodivergent and neurotypical profile...

Figure 12.2 Components of a biopsychosocial approach to neurodiversity

Chapter 15

Figure 15.1 Tier 1 of the M‐TTAF

Chapter 26

Figure 26.1 MJTC outcomes for matched groups.

Note. Prevalence of new crimin

...

Figure 26.2 Behaviour changes among youth with high and low PCL:YV scores (A...

Figure 26.3 Violent recidivism by PCL:YV interpersonal facets for MJTC treat...

Figure 26.4 Changes in ICU scores during MJTC treatment.

Note. Changes in sc

...

Figure 26.5 Violent recidivism by final MJTC Today–Tomorrow behavioural scor...

Chapter 27

Figure 27.1 Nomothetic, inductive and predictive warranty for hypotheses in ...

Figure 27.2 Risk contexts and risk processes

Figure 27.3 Overlap between personal and contextual factors in current setti...

Figure 27.4 Diagrammatic version of Markov chain illustrating chances of shi...

Guide

Cover Page

Table of Contents

Series Page

Title Page

Copyright Page

Dedication Page

About the Editors

List of Contributors

Foreword

Acknowledgements

Begin Reading

Index

WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

Pages

ii

iii

iv

v

xi

xii

xiii

xiv

xv

xvii

xix

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

131

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

311

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

387

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

445

446

447

448

449

450

451

452

453

454

455

Wiley‐Blackwell Series in:What Works in Correctional RehabilitationSeries Editors

Leam A. CraigForensic Psychology Practice Ltd, The Willows Clinic, UKCentre for Applied Psychology, University of Birmingham, UKDepartment of Psychology, Birmingham City University, UKSchool of Psychology, University of Lincoln, UKandLouise DixonGlasgow Caledonian University, UK

What Works in Offender Rehabilitation: An Evidence‐Based Approach to Assessment and TreatmentLeam A. Craig, Louise Dixon, and Theresa A. Gannon

The Wiley Handbook on What Works in Child Maltreatment: An Evidenced‐Based Approach to Assessment and Treatment in Care ProceedingsLouise Dixon, Daniel Perkins, Catherine Hamilton‐Giachritsis, and Leam A. Craig

The Wiley Handbook on What Works in Violence Risk Management: Theory, Research and PracticeSteven J. Wormith, Leam A. Craig, and Todd Hogue

The Wiley Handbook on What Works with Offenders with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: An Evidenced Based Approach to Theory, Assessment and TreatmentWilliam R. Lindsay, Leam A. Craig, and Dorothy Griffith

The Wiley Handbook on What Works with Sexual Offenders: Contemporary Perspectives in Theory, Assessment, Treatment and PreventionJean Proulx, Franca Cortoni, Leam A. Craig, and Elizabeth J. Letourneu

The Wiley Handbook on What Works with Girls and Women in Conflict with the Law: A Critical Review of Theory, Practice, and PolicyShelley L. Brown and Loraine Gelsthorpe

The Wiley Handbook of What Works in Correctional Rehabilitation: An Evidence‐Based Approach to Theory, Assessment and Treatment, 2nd EditionLeam A. Craig, Louise Dixon, and Theresa A. Gannon

The Wiley Handbook of What Works in Correctional Rehabilitation

An Evidence‐Based Approach to Theory, Assessment and Treatment

Second Edition

Edited by

Leam A. Craig

Louise Dixon

Theresa A. Gannon

This edition first published 2025© 2025 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Edition HistoryJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd (1e, 2013)

All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

The right of Leam A. Craig, Louise Dixon, and Theresa A. Gannon to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.

Registered Office(s)John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USAJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.

Trademarks: Wiley and the Wiley logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the United States and other countries and may not be used without written permission. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyWhile the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication DataNames: Craig, Leam A., editor. | Dixon, Louise (Lecturer in psychology), editor. | Gannon, Theresa A., editor. | John Wiley & Sons, publisher.Title: The Wiley handbook of what works in correctional rehabilitation : an evidence‐based approach to theory, assessment and treatment / [edited by] Leam A. Craig, Louise Dixon, Theresa A. Gannon.Description: Second edition. | Hoboken, NJ : Wiley‐Blackwell, 2025. | Includes index.Identifiers: LCCN 2024021655 (print) | LCCN 2024021656 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119893042 (paperback) | ISBN 9781119893059 (adobe pdf) | ISBN 9781119893066 (epub)Subjects: LCSH: Criminals–Rehabilitation.Classification: LCC HV9275 .W49 2025 (print) | LCC HV9275 (ebook) | DDC 364.601/9–dc23/eng/20240618LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2024021655LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2024021656

Cover Design: WileyCover Image: © mikroman6/Getty Images

LAC

:

In the hopes that this volume contributes to a safer society and the rehabilitation of those who find their personal resources stretched to the point where they attract the attention of the criminal justice system.

LD

:

For my brother Ian and the love and selfless devotion he shows to our family. You make the world a better place.

TAG

:

For my husband Jim and his unrelenting support.

About the Editors

Leam A. Craig, Ph.D., C. Psychol, FBPsS, FAcSS, is a consultant forensic and clinical psychologist and partner at Forensic Psychology Practice Ltd. He is a chartered and dual‐registered clinical and forensic psychologist. He is a visiting professor of Forensic Clinical Psychology at Birmingham City University, professor visiting chair of the School of Psychology at the University of Lincoln, and an Hon. Professor of Forensic Psychology at the Centre for Applied Psychology at the University of Birmingham. He has previously worked in forensic psychiatric secure services and consultancy to prison and probation services throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland, specialising in high‐risk, complex cases. He has over 25 years’ experience working as an expert witness having produced well over 1500+ psychology reports and given evidence in 250+ occasions heard before Magistrates, Family and Crown Courts, Military Courts Martial, Mental Health Review Tribunals and Parole Boards. He has previously received instruction from the Salvation Army, Catholic and Church of England Dioceses, the Investigative Psychology Unit of the South African Police Service, the UK Government Legal Department (GLD), the Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC), Donart Film Czech Republic, the United States Air Force European Area Defence Counsel, and the Family Protection and Juvenile Department of the Public Security Directorate, The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. In 2015, he co‐authored a Ministry of Justice research report into the use of expert witnesses in family law and was appointed chair of the British Psychological Society, Expert Witness Advisory Group 2016–2023. He has chaired and contributed to six practice guidance documents published by the British Psychological Society and two joint publications with the Family Justice Council. He is a fellow of the British Psychological Society and of the Academy of Social Sciences, a full member of the Academy of Experts and the Expert Witness Institute. In 2013, he was the recipient of the Senior Academic Award by the Division of Forensic Psychology, and in 2023, he received the British Psychological Society, Distinguished Contribution to Practice Award. He is a series editor to the What Works in Correctional Rehabilitation Wiley‐Blackwell book series and has over 130 publications, including 14 books, with research interests including persons convicted of sexual and violent offences, offenders with personality disorder, forensic risk assessment and the use of psychologists as expert witnesses.

Louise Dixon, Ph.D, C. Psychol, is a professor and the pro vice‐chancellor of Education at Glasgow Caledonian University, Scotland, where she develops and delivers the University's Strategy for Education and provides leadership and direction in teaching and learning. Prior to her current role, Louise was a professor of Forensic Psychology and the Dean of Science at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. In addition to her academic position, Louise is a registered forensic psychologist with the UK Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) and a New Zealand registered psychologist and has experience practicing in prison, probation and private practice settings. Louise enjoys an active international research profile in the prevention of interpersonal aggression and violence. Primarily, her research has centred on the study of intimate partner violence and abuse and the overlap with child maltreatment in the family. Louise aims to understand how and why people are aggressive in intimate relationships and the wider family, with a view to developing effective assessment, intervention programmes and policy. Louise's research has influenced practice and policy in correctional settings, policing, psychological, health and political areas. She recently delivered on a New Zealand Ministry of Social Development funded grant that explored the barriers and facilitators to helpseeking for male survivors of sexual abuse. She is a series editor to the What Works in Correctional Rehabilitation Wiley‐Blackwell book series and is also leading the publication of The Routledge Handbook of Men's Victimisation in Intimate Relationships. She is a fellow of the International Society for Research on Aggression (ISRA), associate editor of the journal Partner Abuse, and sits on the editorial board of several international journals including Child Maltreatment, Aggressive Behavior, and the Journal of Forensic Practice.

Theresa A. Gannon, DPhil, CPsychol (Forensic), is professor of Forensic Psychology and director of the Centre for Research and Education in Forensic Psychology (CORE‐FP) at the University of Kent, UK. Theresa also works as a practitioner consultant forensic psychologist specialising in sexual offending and deliberate firesetting for the Forensic and Specialist Service Line, Kent and Medway Social Care and Partnership Trust, UK. Theresa has published over 150 chapters, articles, books and other scholarly works in the areas of male‐ and female‐perpetrated offending. She is particularly interested in the assessment and treatment of individuals who have sexually offended or set deliberate fires. In 2012, Theresa led the development of the first comprehensive theory of adult deliberate firesetting (named the Multi‐trajectory Theory of Adult Firesetting or M‐TAFF). After leading a series of research studies examining the treatment needs of adult firesetters, Theresa developed the first standardised treatment programs for firesetters (the FIPP and FIP‐MO) which are now implemented in prisons and hospitals internationally. In 2016, Theresa was lead recipient of the ESRC's Outstanding Impact in Society Award for her theoretical work and treatment provision regarding deliberate firesetting. In 2012, Theresa led the Ministry of Justice evaluation of mandatory polygraph supervision for individuals who had sexually offended which led to a legislation change in 2014, and in 2020 she co‐managed the first evaluation of police polygraph testing for individuals suspected of or convicted of sexual offending. In 2019, Theresa's sustained contributions to forensic psychology were formally recognised via the British Psychological Society's Lifetime Significant Achievement Award.

Theresa is lead editor of several books including Aggressive Offenders’ Cognition: Theory, Research, and Treatment (2007: Wiley), Female Sexual Offenders: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (2010: Wiley‐Blackwell) and Sexual Offending: Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation (2017: Wiley‐Blackwell). Theresa is also co‐editor of several other books. Key examples include Firesetting and Mental Health (2012: Royal College of Psychiatrists), What Works in Offender Rehabilitation: An Evidence‐Based Approach to Assessment and Treatment (2013: Wiley‐Blackwell) and The Psychology of Arson: A Practical Guide to Understanding and Managing Adult Deliberate Firesetters (2015: Routledge). In 2022, Theresa was the lead author of a new book on adult firesetting: Adult Deliberate Firesetting: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (Wiley).

List of Contributors

Dominique de Andrade, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Australia; Centre for Drug Use, Addictive and Anti‐social Behaviour Research, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Australia; School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Australia; Griffith Centre for Mental Health, Griffith University, Australia.

Louise Bowers, The Forensic Psychologist Service, UK.

Paul Brown, Specialist Services Care Group, Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, UK.

Shelley L. Brown, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Canada.

Leah C. Butler, School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, USA.

Michael F. Caldwell, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin – Madison, USA.

Ellen M. N. Coady, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Canada.

Andrew Connelly, Offender Personality Disorder Pathway Services, Greater Manchester Probation Service, UK.

Franca Cortoni, School of Criminology, Faculty of Arts & Sciences, Université de Montréal, Canada.

Sarah H. Coupland, Mental Health Law and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University, Canada.

Leam A. Craig, Forensic Psychology Practice Ltd, The Willows Clinic, UK; Centre for Applied Psychology, University of Birmingham, UK; Department of Psychology, Birmingham City University, UK; School of Psychology, University of Lincoln, UK.

Francis T. Cullen, School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, USA.

Louise Dixon, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK.

Deirdre M. D’Orazio, Central Coast Clinical and Forensic Psychological Services, USA; Department of State Hospitals, CA, USA.

Madison C. Fairholm, Department of Psychology and Health Studies, University of Saskatchewan, Canada.

Mark Freestone, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, UK.

Theresa A. Gannon, CORE‐FP, School of Psychology, University of Kent, UK.

Nicola Graham‐Kevan, University of Central Lancashire, UK.

Eva G. Huppe, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Canada.

Julia Ioane, Clinical Psychology, School of Psychology, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Massey University, New Zealand.

Lawrence Jones, Rampton Hospital, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, UK; Nottingham University, UK.

Cheryl Lero Jonson, Department of Criminal Justice, Xavier University, USA.

Sunpreet Kandola, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), Interventions Services, UK.

Abigail Kolb, Department of Civic Engagement and Public Service, University of West Georgia, USA.

Landon Kuester, Department of Criminology, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, UK.

Ian Lambie, Department of Clinical Psychology, School of Psychology, University of Auckland Waipapa Taumata Rau, New Zealand; Chief Science Advisor for the Justice Sector, New Zealand Government, New Zealand.

Caroline Logan, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Manchester, UK.

Jaimee S. Mallion, School of Applied Sciences, London South Bank University, UK.

James McGuire, Department of Psychology, University of Liverpool, UK.

Annette McKeown, Kolvin Service, Cumbria Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, UK.

Estelle Moore, Department of Psychological Services, Broadmoor Hospital, UK.

Richard Moses, Offender Personality Disorder Pathway Services, Greater Manchester Probation Service, UK.

Glynis H. Murphy, Tizard Centre, Division of Law, Society and Social Justice, University of Kent, UK.

Mark E. Olver, Department of Psychology and Health Studies, University of Saskatchewan, Canada.

Karen Orpwood, Specialist Services Care Group, Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, UK.

Derek Perkins, School of Law and Social Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, UK; Psychological Services, Broadmoor Hospital, West London NHS Trust, UK.

Lyne Piché, Private Practice, Canada.

Martin Rettenberger, Centre for Criminology (Kriminologische Zentrastelle – KrimZ), Germany; Department of Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg‐University Mainz (JGU), Germany.

Emily K. Riemer, Department of Psychology and Health Studies, University of Saskatchewan, Canada.

Sydney S. A. Rine, Department of Psychology and Health Studies, University of Saskatchewan, Canada.

Eve Russell, TRAC Psychological Limited, UK.

Katie Sambrooks, CORE‐FP, School of Psychology, University of Kent, UK.

Anton Schweighofer, Private Practice, Canada.

Ivan Sebalo, Centre of Research and Education in Forensic Psychology, School of Psychology, University of Kent, UK.

Geris Serran, Psychologist, Federal Government, Canada.

Keira C. Stockdale, Department of Psychology and Health Studies, University of Saskatchewan, Canada.

Jennifer E. Storey, School of Psychology, University of Kent, UK.

Armon J. Tamatea, Te Kura Whatu Oho Mauri/School of Psychology, Division of Arts, Law & Social Sciences, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

Faye S. Taxman, Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University, USA.

Kirstie Thompson, Specialist Services Care Group, Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, UK.

David Thornton, Forensic Assessment, Training, & Research, LLC, USA.

Nichola Tyler, School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

Gregory J. Van Rybroek, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin – Madison, USA; Mendota Mental Health Institute, USA.

Jamie Walton, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), Interventions Services, UK.

Tony Ward, School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

Gwenda M. Willis, School of Psychology, University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Jane L. Wood, CORE‐FP, School of Psychology, University of Kent, UK.

Foreword

In the period spanning September 2022–2023, an estimated 8.4 million crime incidents were reported according to the CSEW, with a reoffending rate standing at 25.5%. The economic toll of crime has reached approximately £60 billion annually in recent years. Addressing this significant level of crime holds paramount importance for society, aiming to alleviate victimisation and curb economic costs. Despite criticisms within criminology suggesting that academics excel in tallying crime but fall short in reducing it, this notion is convincingly debunked in the context of professionals' contributions to risk assessment and the design of treatment programs, as explored in this insightful book.

My research journey has intricately woven through the complexities of offending, collaborating with remarkable researchers and practitioners like the current editors of this volume. Collaborations with individuals such as Louise Dixon, Leam Craig and Theresa Gannon have greatly influenced my understanding of why individuals engage in antisocial acts and how to prevent recidivism. Their expertise, particularly in sexual offences, arson, general violence and intimate partner violence, has significantly advanced the forensic field.

The initial release of this book occurred over a decade ago. This second edition, expanded from 25 chapters in the first edition to 31 chapters and have been written by leading researchers, seasoned professionals, and academics, provides a wealth of expertise and diverse perspectives. Each chapter offers a well‐researched and balanced review of existing literature, laying a solid foundation for comprehending the effectiveness of various rehabilitation approaches. Practical examples enhance the content's applicability for practitioners, policymakers and students, emphasising evidence‐based practices crucial for accountability and effectiveness in the criminal justice system.

The book is organised into five key areas. The first section introduces the current state of effective practices, while the second outlines up‐to‐date risk assessment processes for various crime types. Part three investigates effective treatments for diverse forensic populations, addressing issues such as sexual offenses, arson, intimate partner violence, substance abuse, gang‐related offending and young offenders, including neurodiverse and intellectually disabled individuals. Section four explores treatments for those in prison and mental health settings, and the final section examines the often overlooked cultural factors influencing rehabilitation efforts.

While the handbook comprehensively outlines effective rehabilitation strategies, it also acknowledges the challenges in implementation, discussing ethical considerations, potential biases and the need for ongoing evaluation. This critical examination contributes to a well‐rounded understanding of the complexities involved in the rehabilitation process. In conclusion, the book is an indispensable resource for anyone involved in the criminal justice system, offering a valuable asset in the pursuit of effective rehabilitation strategies. Professionals, policymakers, researchers, students, and the interested layperson will find its comprehensive coverage and evidence‐based focus highly informative, and a welcome addition to their bookshelf.

Anthony Beech, DPhil, FBPsS

Professor Emeritus in Criminological Psychology, University of Birmingham, UKVisiting Professor, UCLan Cyprus,Honorary Professor, University of Kent, UKFebruary 2024

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the contributors of this volume for sharing their experience and expertise and who have worked tirelessly on this project alongside their hectic schedules.

We thank all those at Wiley‐Blackwell for their patience and guidance in bringing this project together.

Part IIntroduction

1What Works in Correctional Rehabilitation 10 Years On

Leam A. Craig1,2,3,4, Louise Dixon5, and Theresa A. Gannon6

1Forensic Psychology Practice Ltd, The Willows Clinic, UK

2Centre for Applied Psychology, University of Birmingham, UK

3Department of Psychology, Birmingham City University, UK

4School of Psychology, University of Lincoln, UK

5Glasgow Caledonian University, UK

6CORE‐FP, School of Psychology, University of Kent, UK

Introduction

The last 10 years since the first edition of this volume, the literature base of the What Works movement has witnessed seismic changes in policy, practice, and research into correctional rehabilitation, not least of all how we refer to people caught up in correctional rehabilitation. Since Gwenda Willis published her 2018 paper highlighting the ethical concerns and incongruence of labelling people based on criminal convictions, there has been increased emphasis within the research literature for person‐first language and the avoidance or de‐emphasis of offence‐based labels (e.g., ‘sexual offender’) to describe people. In several international journals covering issues of psychology and the law, authors are encouraged to be thoughtful about the connotations of language used in their manuscripts to describe persons or groups. Person‐first language (e.g., ‘persons with sexual offence histories’, ‘individual who has been adjudicated for…’ and ‘child/adolescent with sexual behaviour problems’) is generally preferred because it is often more accurate and less pejorative than terms like ‘sex offender’. Terms like ‘sex offender’ imply an ongoing tendency to commit sex offences, which of course, is inaccurate. Person‐first language is also consistent with American Psychological Association (APA, 2020) style guidelines for reducing bias in written language and for more inclusive language (APA, 2023). Similarly, the use of an offence label like ‘offender’ contradicts the aim of What Works in rehabilitation (Why call someone by what we don't want them to be? Willis, 2018). It would be all the more appealing if clinical practice modelled developments in research in how we refer to the people at the centre of our research and clinical work. It is for this reason that this second edition of the What Works book published in 2013 has been renamed The Wiley Handbook of What Works in Correctional Rehabilitation: An Evidence‐Based Approach to Theory, Assessment and Treatment, 2nd Edition.

Assessment: 10 years on

There have been developments in research and practice since the last edition of this book which provide an opportunity for mapping a service delivery response that stands some chance of meeting the needs of those in crisis. The What Works literature has expanded from the, still key, objective of reducing recidivism to include improving other aspects of the lives of those who perpetrate and those who are affected by crime. Following the 1974 Nothing Works, there was a ‘get tough’ era from the mid‐1970s until approximately 2010 where correctional reform became commonplace amid the background of a slow change in public policy on incarceration. As Jonson et al. (2024, Chapter 2) note, the pendulum is beginning to swing back to a more progressive approach to responding to crime. Amid a backdrop of mounting evidence that prisons are not an effective deterrent (Nagin et al., 2009; Petersilia & Cullen, 2015; Petrich et al., 2021), policymakers are amenable to considering new rehabilitative solutions to the crime problem being endorsed (Listwan et al., 2008).

An emphasis throughout this volume is that of individualised analysis of risk and need to complement any rehabilitative efforts in changing behaviour. Several authors highlight the importance of understanding the aetiology of the person's history, as part of a case formulation (CF) approach, before considering how and which criminogenic factors to target in order to reduce re‐offending (see Freestone & Kuester, 2024; Logan et al., 2024, Rettenberger & Craig, 2024). These processes are embedded within the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Bonta & Andrews, 2017) which emerged as a core framework for correctional practice nearly 30 years ago to reinvigorate rehabilitation as an operating framework for agencies responsible for incarcerating and/or supervising individuals as part of a sanction (Taxman, 2024: Chapter 4). Essentially, the risk principle involves identifying who to treat and by what dosage based on the assessment of that person's risk: low‐risk people should receive less intensive treatment whereas high‐risk people should participate in moderate‐ to high‐intensity interventions. The need principle, assessed as dynamic factors, or those attributes that are malleable, focusses on those risk factors which contributed to the behaviour. The responsivity principle refers to the use of social learning and cognitive behavioural strategies to facilitate growth and development, as well as to tailor responses to individual characteristics such as maturation, motivation, learning styles, learning disabilities, mental illness, and other factors that affect receptivity and response to correctional control and services. Taxman (2024) observes that while the RNR framework is implemented across the world, embedded within the simplicity of the RNR framework are contested ideas that prevent the RNR model from realising its true rehabilitative purpose and from being implemented in routine decisions at all levels of the organisation. Taxman highlights that studies examining the RNR framework emphasise the examination of latent classes, or the clustering of risk–needs together. In doing this, a sole emphasis on risk has emerged which does not take into consideration the collective factors that result in how a person presents in terms of overall risk for recidivism. Taxman notes that most agencies acknowledge that risk and need assessment tools are seldom used to inform case plans and make several recommendations as to how contested concepts of the RNR framework can be addressed.

Linked to this is how practitioners assess risk in forensic settings in cases of young people who have offended (Bowers & McKeown, 2024: Chapter 6), people with violent offence convictions (Sebalo, 2024: Chapter 7), people with sexual offence convictions (Thornton, 2024: Chapter 8; Schweighofer et al., 2024: Chapter 9), and in the assessment of stalking threat (Coupland & Storey, 2024: Chapter 10). Common across these topics is the use of actuarial risk assessment instruments (ARAIs) and/or structured professional judgment (SPJ) risk frameworks as standardised and empirically robust methods to assess recidivism risk. The authors emphasise the importance of structured, and in the case of actuarial scales, normed data. There is also an emphasis on taking an individualistic approach to risk assessment, combining an idiographic and nomothetic approach to risk assessment (see Craig et al., 2004a). While actuarial style scales have been criticised for lacking specificity resulting in meaningless confidence intervals (Cooke & Michie, 2014), there is a great deal of research which supports the use of ARAIs, particularly in the use of persons with sexual offence convictions (Thornton, 2024). However, as Craig et al. (2004b) observed 20 years ago, the limitations of ARAIs means that, by their nature, these scales can only reveal part of a much bigger picture of risk.

An important emerging consideration in recent years relates to cultural issues in relation to forensic risk assessment. As Riemer, Olver, and Stockdale (Chapter 30) note, ethnic minorities are overrepresented in correctional services that have emerged amidst a history of colonisation. And, such minorities have a tendency to score higher on actuarial measures of sexual risk. Riemer and colleagues point out that culturally responsive assessment of risk is critical since systemic racism continues to entrench key factors theorised to increase criminal risk (e.g., work and education) and yet ethnic minorities may not inevitably be at increased risk of criminal behaviour. Consequently, thoughtful consideration and contextualisation of risk are required to ensure that risk assessment is fair and does not permeate injustices already experienced by ethnic minority groups.

Linked to the idea of thoughtful consideration of forensic risk is the importance of CF, both in the assessment and in identifying the interventions part of rehabilitation efforts. As Bowers and McKeown (2024) note, for young people in contact with the criminal justice system, their histories are typically complex and often include attachment issues, developmental trauma, as well as exclusion and discrimination, which will only be understood after a more detailed analysis of that person's history, the method of choice in most cases being CF. In a similar vein, Moore (Chapter 24) notes that a working CF is vital for informing complex inpatient work with high‐risk forensic patients. The process of understanding a person's history and organising information taken from that history to a narrative has long been recognised as a cornerstone to effective assessment and diagnoses and is regarded as one of the core competencies of psychological and psychiatric training (Craig & Rettenberger, 2018). There is a limited but growing evidence base exploring the effectiveness and impact of different formulation approaches with positive outcomes for staff and clients within health and forensic settings (Clark & Chaun, 2016; Ghag et al., 2021: Moran et al., 2022).

Despite the widespread use of the term CF in clinical and forensic psychology documents, there is no universally agreed definition of formulation with different professions bringing their own characteristic perspectives to the subject (Butler, 1998; Eells & Lombart, 2011). CF has been described as the lynchpin that holds theory and practice together (Persons et al., 2006) and a process whereby therapist and client work collaboratively first to describe and then to explain the issues a client presents in therapy. A formulation involves ‘the inferences about predisposing vulnerabilities, a pathogenic learning history, biological or genetic factors, sociocultural influences, currently operating contingencies of reinforcement, conditioned stimulus‐response relationships or schemas, working models, and beliefs about the self, others, the future or world’ (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998, p. 3). A CF is generally considered a working hypothesis about a person's difficulties which summarizes and integrates a broad range of biopsychosocial causal factors and is based on personal meaning and constructed collaboratively with service users. The formulation is underpinned by psychological theory used to explain the aetiology and guides the intervention process.

Rehabilitation: 10 years on

The last decade has, generally, been a time of optimism in correctional services with improved understanding of the factors which contribute to offending and what is effective in reducing recidivism risk. Perhaps one notable blip to this optimism was the publication by Mews, Di Bella, and Purver in 2017 of the large‐scale evaluation of sexual offence treatment programming (named ‘Core’) provided to men within the English and Welsh Prison Service from 2000 to 2012. In the context of what appeared to be a very rigorous evaluation, Mews et al. (2017) found that men treated with Core did not decrease their sexual recidivism but instead increased it by a relative value of 25% compared with a control group of untreated men. Understandably, professionals were concerned about this finding and what it meant for future sexual offence programming. In 2019, the Mews et al. (2017) evaluation was integrated into a wider meta‐analysis examining the offence‐specific treatment effects for sexual offending (see Gannon et al., 2019). This meta‐analysis showed that the Mews et al. (2017) study was an outlier and that regardless as to whether it was included in the meta‐analysis or not, sexual offence programming (i.e., across >40 studies) assessed using random effects modelling was associated with relative sexual offence reductions of over a third. What's more, the meta‐analysis showed that particular features that had been absent from the Core programme (e.g., consistent input from a qualified psychologist and use of active arousal re‐conditioning strategies to tackle inappropriate sexual arousal) were associated with better recidivism outcomes (see Perkins, Chapter 13 and Murphy, Chapter 21). These findings are important for professionals moving forward since they suggest that attention should be paid, not only to treatment evaluation design but to the implementation and process of treatment itself (see D’Orazio, chapter 25).

In addition to this improved understanding, there has been a greater emphasis on understanding the origins of offending behaviour considering developmental influences and the development of unhelpful cognitions, which, in some cases, is complicated by neurodiversity as well as specific cultural considerations (see McGuire, Chapter 11 and Serran, Chapter 31).

Advances in the understanding of forensic neuroscience and the impact of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on brain development (Teicher et al., 2004) have led to new promising psychologically based methods of promoting change in those who have offended. The development of offending behaviour programmes (OBPs) has greatly expanded over the last 10 years, based on improved knowledge and awareness of neurodiversity and forensic neuroscience in understanding offending behaviour and rehabilitation (Mitchell & Beech, 2011). Kandola and Walton (2024, Chapter 12) discuss how OBP teams undertake whole‐person responsivity assessments for all individuals as a standard part of OBP pathway triaging. They describe how cognitive functions and adaptive functions are routinely assessed and supported under the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) principles (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). These are key areas on which OBPs have been specifically designed for neurodivergent groups which have led to a range of specific ‘brain friendly’ intervention programmes where methods for sensory learning such as visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic are used as much as possible to minimise an overly excessive focus on traditional sedentary routines that are literacy centred, catering most often for a neurotypical audience (i.e., sitting, listening, reading, and writing).

Understanding the impact of ACEs and trauma as contributory factors in understanding the aetiology of offending behaviour has greatly expanded over the last 10 years. Trauma‐informed therapy has now become widely recognised as relevant within treatment services for those who have committed sexual (as well as other) offences. The importance of trauma as both a treatment target and a responsivity factor has grown exponentially since Fallot and Harris’ (2006) seminal publication on trauma‐informed services. For women in particular, strength‐based models will be important for actively incorporating strengths into case planning regardless of risk level. Strength‐based practices include reframing questions and being non‐judgemental, recognizing and mobilizing existing strengths, using motivational interviewing and working with the client in a collaborative nature as they are their own experts (Van Dieten, 2022). This approach acknowledges the challenges that women encounter and their prevailing sense of powerlessness, while empowering them to make autonomous and well‐informed decisions.

Jones (2024, Chapter 28) challenges the ‘traditional’ method of using reconviction as an outcome measure to determine desistance or success emphasising that indicators of success can be identified using alternative methods for those people detained within secure clinical settings. Jones places particular emphasis on understanding the impact of traumatic experiences on resources in the individual's world, which has much in common with the idea of ‘goods’ in the good lives model (GLM; Prescott & Willis, 2022; Ward, 2002). The GLM focusses attention on the ways in which loss or deprivation of ‘goods’ can impact the propensity to enter into offending processes. Jones argues that effective treatment should consider the antecedent context in which offending has occurred as well as the impact of on‐going trauma rather than seeing trauma and adversity as something ‘in the past’. When the context is seen in this way, it is possible to acknowledge the ways in which people are often responding to adversity when they offend. He posits that trauma responses are adaptations to what has been described as ‘fast’ evolutionary contexts (Durrant & Ward, 2015; Jones 2022), i.e., contexts where there are fewer resources and there is more competition and lack of safety, which can be identified through not only detailed CF considering factors which contributed to offending but also CFs of times when behaviours have been successful in supporting desistance.

The GLM recognises and utilises many of these principles with those who have committed crime. The underpinning concept is that every human being strives to live a good life that meets their psychological, educational, recreational and spiritual needs and should be assisted to develop strategies to achieve this. This can include achieving relatedness to others, satisfying work and a sense of inner peace, emphasising a more holistic approach. The aim is to create a ‘good’ but realistic lifestyle for the individual. Willis and Ward (2024, Chapter 22) argue that the GLM is ideally placed to promote desistance from offending given its sensitivity to an individual's values, aspirations and social ecology. They highlight that several empirical studies support the knowledge‐related assumptions of the GLM practice framework. The object of GLM intervention is an individual's good life plan (GLP), and the adaptive pursuit of primary human goods in their daily lives where the aim of correctional intervention is the promotion of primary goods, or human needs that, once met, enhance psychological well‐being. Willis and Ward highlight that the GLM is a practice framework that is intended to supply practitioners with an overview of the aims and values underpinning practice rather than a specific treatment model per se. Programmes can be, and are, constructed that reflect GLM assumptions into rehabilitation endeavours and provide a systematic, comprehensive framework for designing treatment and management approaches.

In considering What Works for women in custodial settings, Brown et al. (2024, Chapter 17) emphasise the importance of recognising and understanding the impact of trauma on women who have offended. Many justice‐impacted women face relational struggles early in life, beginning with ACEs, that endure throughout adulthood by means of dysfunctional emotional relationships and devotion to criminal romantic partners. Trauma‐based research has illustrated that individuals who have been traumatised may live in a constant state of fear or be easily triggered into a fear response (fight/flight/freeze) by a range of personalised environmental stimuli and experience emotional dysregulation, which until recently criminal justice agencies have failed to respond to. Brown et al. highlight how several countries including Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom have started to introduce policies and procedures to create environments characterised by safety, respect and dignity, something which was previously lacking (Corston, 2007). Brown et al. discuss 10 over‐arching principles when supporting women in custodial settings which are rooted in an extensive array of both RNR and gender‐responsive scholarship. Their principles underscore the importance of theory, what, who and how to assess, how and where to intervene, the need for well‐trained staff and holistic evaluation, using custody only as a last resort, and lastly, when custodial sentences are unavoidable, the requirement to deliver services that are not only safe but treat women with basic human dignity.

Cortoni (2024, Chapter 18) observes that over the last three decades, practices have (slowly) evolved to become more gender‐responsive. The term ‘gender‐responsive’ refers to practices and interventions that are chosen specifically for girls or women rather than being adapted from men's. In the scientific literature, if not always in practice, it is attested that interventions for offending behaviour among women must concurrently attend to issues related to gender‐responsiveness while ensuring that the criminogenic factors are addressed (van Wormer, 2010). Within this context, there are universal gender‐informed principles that should be incorporated in criminal justice interventions for justice‐involved women, regardless of whether the interventions are intended to address general criminal behaviour, substance abuse problems, violent behaviour, domestic violence or sexual offending. Cortoni notes not only that interventions for women convicted for [sexual] offences require a relational model of treatment but also that trauma issues are taken into consideration using a trauma‐informed approach. This integrated treatment approach considers the interrelated levels of trauma, mental health issues, substance abuse and other criminogenic problems to maximize the woman's ability to develop new and healthier behavioural competencies (Covington, 2022; Saxena et al., 2014). Evidence indicates that this type of approach maximally reduces the likelihood of recidivism among women who have offended (Gobeil et al., 2016; King, 2017) but only among those who have victimisation and trauma histories.

The importance of relationship building is recognised as being critical to successful, effective interventions, both in general psychology and in correctional interventions. Being aware that it will take time to build trust, and awareness of bias and trauma is critical as it will likely take even more time and effort to build trust with clients who have experienced these issues. Several authors emphasise the importance of relationship building and idiographic approaches to interventions when supporting desistance. Logan et al. (2024, Chapter 29) discuss the importance of CF when understanding the clinical presentations of people who present with personality‐related difficulties. They argue that the purpose of a formulation is to guide interventions that will address the problem it explains. Therefore, formulation sits between assessment and intervention, linking the one with the other. They emphasise the importance of developing a collaborative approach in understanding the impact of personality on behaviour when attempting to change the kinds of relationships people with personality‐related difficulties have with others. The introduction of the offenders with personality disorder (OPD) pathway established in England and Wales 2012 (Joseph & Benefield, 2012) draws on these core principles which have shown to demonstrate effectiveness in the reduction of adjudications and prison recalls for those managed under the OPD pathway (Moran et al., 2022). Logan et al. (2024) highlight that the work of the OPD pathway has enabled a leap forward in terms of empirical research on (1) what formulation is as opposed to any other narrative about a client (a case summary, e.g., or a diagnosis), (2) what a good formulation looks like compared to a poor one, and (3) the standards to which both case and risk formulations separately should aspire.

Elements common to many psychological therapies have been noted to include: (1) a confiding relationship with a professionally trained therapist, (2) a rationale which contains an explanation for the client's distress or difficulties and how treatment aims to relieve these, (3) the provision of hope for the client that helps can be expected from therapy, (4) an opportunity for experiencing a sense of mastery during the course of therapy, and (5) the facilitation of appropriate emotional arousal in the client. Re‐offending in the community typically highlights the many unpredictable events in the individual's life carrying them towards desistence or relapse that may well have been more significant determinants of maintaining desistance than the psychological treatment. Helping the individual in question navigate through and learn from these various circumstances and events in ways that reduce risk and help them towards a satisfying and offence‐free life therefore becomes a necessary part of ‘the treatment’. This conceptualisation moves away from the notion of a discrete package of X hours of individual and/or group treatment which, once delivered has continuing effects, to a model of ongoing, multi‐faceted and responsive reintegration into the community. As Lambie and Randell (2013) note, while positive rehabilitative effects can be achieved in institutional settings, the limitations of those environments and their potential for negative impacts limit their rehabilitative potential.