Evidence-Base and Evaluations


EVALUATIONS

2005 Qualitative Review

A qualitative review of many evaluations of R&R concluded that

"R&R is one of the most frequently evaluated programs. Its efficacy has been examined in a remarkable number of independent international evaluations not only in Canada where it was developed but also in California, Colorado, Georgia, Texas, Germany, Scotland, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. It is clear that the cognitive model and the R&R program that it spawned has been well received in the criminal justice community for more than eighteen years ... This review would indicate that the enthusiasm has been reinforced by evidence of its efficacy in a variety of settings, with a variety of types of offenders in a variety of countries". Antonowicz (2005).

2001 Cost-benefit analysis

The cost-effectiveness of R&R was analyzed by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. It concluded:

 "cost per participant is low, about $300… effect sizes, coupled with the low cost of the program, produce attractive… economic bottom lines of about $2,400 in net taxpayer-only benefits per participant. (Aos, Phipps, Barnoski & Lieb, 2001)

2006 Meta-analysis

A Cambridge University meta-analysis of studies on the efficacy of R&R concluded:

“Sixteen evaluations (involving 26 separate comparisons) were located in which experimental and control groups were compared. A meta-analysis showed that, overall, there was a significant 14% decrease in recidivism for programme participants compared with controls... It was effective in community and institutional settings, and for low risk and high-risk offenders. Smaller and larger evaluation studies, and older and newer studies, concluded that the programme was effective” (Tong & Farrington, 2006).

2008 Meta-analysis

A second Cambridge meta-analysis of nineteen evaluations (involving 32 separate comparisons) again found that

“overall, there was a significant 14% decrease in recidivism for program participants compared to controls... It was effective in community and institutional settings, whether given on a voluntary basis or not, and for low risk and high risk offenders” (Tong & Farrington, 2008).

2010 UK Clinical Excellence Guidelines 

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for England and Wales provides “guidelines based on the best available research evidence to inform patients, professionals and the public about appropriate treatment for specific conditions”. The NICE Guidelines for interventions to reduce offending among offenders with Antisocial Personality Disorder, Psychopathy, or dangerous and severe Personality Disorder identify

"group-based cognitive and behavioral interventions such as Reasoning and Rehabilitation" as the "Key priorities for implementation" (Nice, 2010)

2010 Cost-benefit analysis

An analysis of the cost-benefits of R&R by NICE concluded that the reduction in the recidivism rates by providing R&R to adult offenders results in

an overall net saving of £232 per adult offender over 1 year”.

The cost-benefit analysis also concluded that R&R can potentially lead to a reduction in other costs:

“healthcare costs and emotional distress of victims, the financial and economic burden to the families of both victims and offenders, and the feelings of fear and insecurity at anticipation of crime” (National Institute Clinical Excellence Guidelines, 2010).

2017 Review of 50 international evaluations

A report on the findings of fifty independent, international controlled evaluations of R&R and R&R2 conducted in many countries over more than twenty years since the program was first evaluated in Canada concluded that

          “Reasoning & Rehabilitation programs are among the most frequently evaluated programs in the criminal justice field. Their efficacy in reducing recidivism has been demonstrated in a remarkable number of evaluations.The report documents the success of many applications of the R&R/R&R2 model. R&R/R&R2 programs can significantly and substantially reduce recidivism when conducted with integrity by well-trained, enthusiastic staff and implemented in a social, political and economic environment that is supportive of their efforts...R&R2 programs were designed to provide shorter, theoretically sound and practical ways to motivate reluctant, resistant and ambivalent clients. The foregoing evaluations document their efficacy. (Antonowich & Parker, 2014)

 

Antonowicz, D.H. & Parker, J. (2014) Reducing Recidivism: Evidence from 28 Years of International Evaluations of Reasoning & Rehabilitation Programs. http://archive.icpa.ca/tools/download/1937/Reasoning_and_Rehabilitation_Review.

Tong, L. S. J. & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Effectiveness of “Reasoning and Rehabilitation” in Reducing Reoffending. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Aos, S., Miller, M. & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What Does Not. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.  

 

Evidence-Base 

 

Effective Correctional Treatment. Ross & Gendreau, 1980

Time to Think: A Cognitive Model of Offender Rehabilitation and Delinquency Prevention (Ross & Fabiano, 1985).

Going Straight: Effective Delinquency Prevention & Offender Rehabilitation (Ross, Antonowicz & Dahliwal, 1995)

Thinking Straight: The Reasoning and Rehabilitation Program for Delinquency Prevention & Offender Rehabilitation (Ross & Ross, 1995).

Treatment of the Alcohol-abusing Offender (Ross & Lightfoot, 1985).

Female Offenders: Correctional Afterthoughts (Ross & Fabiano, 1986)

Antisocial Drivers: Pro-social Driver Training for Prevention and Rehabilitation (Ross & Antonowicz, 2007)

Rehabilitating Rehabilitation: Neurocriminology for Prevention and Rehabilitation (Ross & Hilborn 2008)

Troubled and Troublesome Athletes: Rehabilitation & Prevention (Ross, 2018).

 

Most are available through the Cognitive Centre of Canada cognitivecentre@gmail.com