Evaluations

---

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)

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)

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 insitutional settings, and for low risk and high-risk offenders. Smaller and larger evaluaiton studies, and older and newer studies, concluded that the programme was effective".

Tong & Farrington (2006)

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)

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 identify interventions to reduce offending among offenders with Antisocial Personality Disorder, Psychopathy, or dangerous and severe Personality Disorder identity.

The guidelines concluded that "group-based cognitive and behavioural interventions such as Reasoning and Rehabilitation" are "Key priorities for implementation".

(2010)

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 savings of 232 BPS 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 oth victims and offenders, and the feelings of fear and insecurity at anticipation of crime"

National Institute Clinical Excellence Guidelines (2010)"

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 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".

Antonowicz & Parker (2014)