What Support Services Are Available for People Leaving the Criminal Justice System, and How Do These Impact Reoffending Rates?

Chapter 1: Introduction 

Background of Study

Correctional programs in prisons are meant to teach prisoners survival skills so they may be reintegrated into society after release. However, many freed convicts reoffend in the U.K., raising questions about the prison system’s efficacy. Since it rehabilitates and reintegrates criminals, the prison system is vital to society. Many researchers (Kruze & Priede, 2020; Law & Guo, 2016; Seewald et al., 2018; Zarkin, 2015) have claimed that contemporary orthodox responses to crime largely support jail and punishment. Despite punitive prison-based responses to crime, data reveals that crime is growing fast. In their 30-year experimentation with retributive and punitive approaches, Huynh et al. (2015) and Mudzimiri (2016) found that the prison population has consistently skyrocketed, leading them to conclude that the prison system has commonly adopted deterrence, which rarely has any effect on offenders reoffending, resulting in an increased rate of reoffending.

According to Bagnall et al. (2015), classification for rehabilitation and reintegration shows how specific categories of offenders can be linked to discretionary services to improve prison system services. Thus, Mansoor (2015) and Ostermann, Salerno, and Hyatt (2015) explained that the prison system’s effectiveness depends on reducing recidivism, which is usually divided into “classes of offenders” (preservice differentiation) based on the offenders’ individual and contextual factors, and “discretionary service” (direct correctional service). Offenders’ criminogenic needs, recidivism risk, and responsiveness to various programs show how their traits may affect the kind, aim, and intensity of rehabilitative effort. Topçuoğlu (2016) and Wright and Gifford (2017) recognized the advancements in the U.K. and worldwide jail systems, including the 20th-anniversary commemoration in 2020.

However, Ellison et al. (2017) explained that correctional psychology and criminology experts required the rehabilitation place to be established and suitable for disciplinary purposes, which could only be achieved through continued effort and facilitation in correctional technology and training transfer. Due to the growing body of scientific evidence, particularly in criminology and psychology, showing the failure of a punitive approach to dealing with crimes in prisons around the world, many nations have begun to adopt a more holistic approach to offenders to improve prison systems. Beaudry et al. (2021) and Deitch (2020) noted that the UK, Canada, and the U.S. have recognized the need to rehabilitate and integrate prisoners into society to reduce reoffending. Porporino (2018) and Serin and Lloyd (2017) also stated that integration, unlike jail and punishment, protects criminals and society. Thus, the integration and rehabilitation of criminals should be seen as a jail system that promotes restorative Justice rather than crime prevention. South et al. (2016) and Newbury-Birch et al. (2016) stated that reoffending has increased even though most jails worldwide are implementing correctional programs. Liebrenz et al. (2020) and Ekanayake and Madhuwanthi (2018) explained that ex-convicts relapse mostly because prisons fail to adequately support their reintegration into society as law-abiding citizens, contributing to the already rising crime rate and calling the prison system into question. The present research examines how well the jail system rehabilitates and reintegrates criminals.

A problem statement 

The prison system provides correctional programs to teach inmates survival skills so they can live crime-free lives after release and reduce prison populations by breaking the offending chain. However, jail populations are rising, and most criminals are repeat offenders, calling into question the prison system’s correctional programs. Gannon et al. (2019) and Durjava (2018) found that jail programs do not deter most criminals. In 2018, the U.K. Prison Admission Register found that 57.8% of 2015 prisoners were reconvicted after two years (Mpofu et al., 2018; Kuria, 2020). Based on this backdrop, the following study investigates the U.K. jail system’s efficacy in decreasing recidivism.

Aim

This research will examine whether prisons decrease recidivism. The goal is below.

Objective

The project aims to determine whether U.K. prison facilities, techniques, and regimes foster a rehabilitative culture to minimize male reoffending.

Research question 

What is the purpose of prison?

Are jails rehabilitative? If not, why?

How can a rehabilitative culture be established?

Significance of the research 

The research will provide a roadmap for creating a rehabilitative culture to minimize reoffending and jail rates.

Research outlines

The review study comprises five chapters, and this one introduces it. The opening chapter provided a detailed history of the prison system and its operation. Chapter two describes the review technique. Chapter three presents the review’s findings. Chapter four discusses results interpretation. The results’ conclusion is in chapter five.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

The chapter reviews research on the U.K. prison system’s efficacy in rehabilitating and reducing recidivism among male criminals. In the sections below, the chapter details the research gaps originating from the viewpoints offered in existing studies.

U.K. prison system overview

Prisons are renowned for rehabilitating and reintegrating prisoners. A wealth of research on “what works” in prisons has contributed to the understanding of correctional rehabilitation and integration efficacy (Petrović et al., 2017). The whole study evaluates the effect of corrective and rehabilitative measures, notably on recidivating criminals. According to Hucklesby et al. (2016), such effects or impacts of the correctional system are difficult to determine because simple rates of recidivism are mainly a function of individual offenders’ contributive characteristics, especially risk factors like previous offense, gender, and age (Moule, 2021). Gobeil, Blanchette, and Stewart (2016) found that the most robust designs randomly assign a larger population of offenders to intervention and control conditions, maintain high fidelity to intervention plans, and have little attrition from data collection or assigned conditions for recidivism measures. Maruna (2017) and Zurhold and Stöver (2016) noted that actual experiments for correction interventions are often difficult to conduct, which is why most of the research in this area is from quasi-experiments with non-randomized control groups, varying attrition and completion rates, and small samples (Mulgrew, 2022). Given the prominence of punitive tactics in corrections, this analysis emphasized the efficacy of U.K. prisons, monitoring, and punishments before moving on to more extensive evaluations of the prison system.

Effectiveness of U.K. prisons

Studies show that the quality of U.K. jail service has declined over the previous decade. According to H.M. Treasury (2016), funding cutbacks from the Ministry of Justice’s spending review plan are primarily responsible for the decline in the quality of jail service. The H.M. Treasury (2016) report is crucial to the present research since the scholar reiterates sentence changes and the increasing proportion of male criminals who are meant for prison rehabilitation. MOJ (2019) supported H.M. Treasury (2016) by highlighting the effects of jail reform in the U.K. A decrease in jail personnel in 2016/17 payment holding down from 2011/12 and freezing in 2012/13 were used to reduce prison costs (MOJ, 2019). According to MOJ (2019), jail funding dropped from 39% in 2012/13 to 22% in 2016/17, which may explain why U.K. prisons’ rehabilitative services are diminishing. Gauke (2019) found that although jail budgets decreased owing to salary cutbacks and personnel reductions, the overall number of prisoners increased by at least 2% from 2009 to 2016. Gauke (2019) found that although prisoner numbers increased, staff numbers decreased by at least 26%, contradicting H.M. Treasury (2016). Gauke (2016) found that the prison department has issues that prevent it from providing quality rehabilitative services to offenders, emphasizing the importance of current research on U.K. prisons’ rehabilitative role in reducing male recidivism. Thornton, Pearson, and Andrews (2015) found that U.K. jail personnel declined by 15% in 2013/14, supporting the author’s view. Thornton, Pearson, and Andrews (2015) found that financial demands, human resource limits, and recruiting issues cause inefficiencies in the jail department, which hinders rehabilitative performance. The evaluated materials focused on the general prison population of male and female offenders’ rehabilitation requirements as performance problems in the U.K. prison system. Thus, the present study addressed the research vacuum by critically examining how performance concerns affect prison system efficacy in rehabilitating male criminals and reducing recidivism.

Supervision and punishment affect recidivism.

Most convicts avoid crime when reintegrating into society since the prison system lives on punishment (Lofstrom & Raphael, 2016). Without rearrest and consequences, criminals would simply reoffend. Hucklesby et al. (2016) agreed that the effectiveness of prison correctional interventions has not been assessed on how they generally deter convicts from reoffending but on specific deterrence, that is, whether prison punishment reduces the frequency of criminal behavior. Murhula, Singh, and Nunlall (2019) disagreed, arguing that examining the impact of jail terms rather than a particular deterrent method may be more suitable. Based on these considerations, Sered, Tafte, and Russell (2021) argued that neither punishment severity nor jail term length may affect recidivism. In that respect, Deterrent-oriented and jail sentence length are essential factors in determining prison system viability.

Many jails worldwide have used deterrence-oriented rehabilitation or correctional intervention programs to increase offender control or punishment. Murhula, Singh, and Nunlall (2019) rejected deterrence-oriented intervention programs and recommended intensive supervision programs in which parolees are assigned small caseloads, visited regularly and unannounced by supervising officers, and threatened with incarceration and revocation for misbehavior. Zurhold and Stöver (2016) also examined the impact of intensive supervision across 18 U.K. prisons using random assignment as the study design. They found no reduction in recidivism in all prisons and that offenders under intensive supervision had a higher annual recidivism rate than those in the probation control group. In conclusion, the jail system has failed to establish successful correctional measures to rehabilitate prisoners into society.

Another important topic is how jail sentence affects recidivism. Olonisakin, Ogunleye, and Adebayo (2017) stated that the usual deterrence hypothesis states that longer prison sentences reduce criminal behavior. Still, the results of such intervention have failed to show that incarceration discourages reoffending after release. Maruna (2017) performed longitudinal research and concluded that incarceration promotes recidivism by diminishing the social relationship between criminals and prison personnel. James (2018) found in matched samples of California felony offenders that prison inmates had a greater recidivism rate than probationers. Sered, Tafte, and Russell (2021) also found that incarceration causes crime. Hucklesby et al. (2016) found a substantial mean decrease in recidivism for correctional imprisonments or confinement in their meta-analysis. This contradictory conclusion was similar to Rogers, Simonot, and Nartey’s (2015) results that showed no impact. Still, it focused on chosen boot camps that only give short-term detention or custodial care. On average, jail increased recidivism compared to community supervision or shorter prison terms.

Rehabilitation’s impact on recidivism

Rehabilitative therapy allows jail personnel to contact prisoners, unlike correctional consequences. Mitchell et al. (2017) claimed that the interactive connection guides motivates, and supports the constructive alteration of circumstances and qualities that foster criminal behaviors or undermine prosocial tendencies among offenders (Bell & Walter, 2018). Latessa, Johnson, and Koetzle (2020) added that rehabilitative treatment programs are often offered alongside probation and incarceration, but the sanction does not define them and is usually conducted without a sanction. Petrović, Jovanić, and Luković (2017) said that rehabilitation therapy includes psychological involvement like cognitive engagement.

Behavioral therapy, for instance, uses instructions and exercise routines to modify most offenders’ disordered thinking and behavior. Zurhold and Stöver (2016) added that such thought patterns include self-justification, entitlement, dominance in relationships, exaggerated expectations of consequences of antisocial conduct, and blame shifting. The therapy approaches employed to convert prisoners are thought to determine the efficacy of correctional institutions. Lofstrom and Raphael (2016) found typical impact sizes of 20% to 40% recidivism reductions. Grills et al. (2015) found no substantial overlap in the mean impact size range in the meta-analysis of punishment effects and rehabilitative measures.

However, van Dyken (2015) revealed that the least mean effect size of recidivism in any meta-analysis of a vast collection of rehabilitative treatments is larger than the maximum one discovered in any penalty intervention meta-analysis.

Rehabilitation therapies are predicted to have a more significant effect on public safety than punitive measures by reducing reoffending among convicted criminals.

Summary, Research Gap

The present analysis shows that financial restrictions, human resources concerns from insufficient jail personnel, and rehabilitative functions plague the U.K. prison department, which is deteriorating. Although extant studies have been conducted on diverse and often overlapping subsets of multiple correctional and rehabilitative intervention studies, the review found a research gap due to the need for more studies on the U.K. prison department’s predominantly male population (Worthington, 2022). Thus, the present review uses a research gap to examine and evaluate the data on reducing recidivism in the prison system’s interventional services. Thus, this study fills the research vacuum by reviewing the literature to assess the U.K. jail system’s efficacy.

Chapter Three: Methods

Introduction

The chapter details the research process. The chapter covers the study’s philosophy, research goals, data collection, literature search, method, and databases. The chapter also discusses validity and reliability, secondary source data analysis, ethical issues, and technique limitations, as shown below.

Research Philosophy

Chandra and Shang (2019) described a research philosophy as a brief viewpoint that explains data aspects of a topic under inquiry and justifies the best technique to gather and analyze data. According to Howell (2012), a researcher’s ideology and study approach must complement each other. Thus, interpretivism underpinned the present investigation.

Philosophical assumption based on paradigm compatibility for intersubjectivity, as Creswell & Creswell (2018) described. According to Gale et al. (2013), interpretivist philosophy was chosen since it helped comprehend experts’ viewpoints on literature. Interpretivist philosophy allows researchers to explore a phenomenon’s experiences and realities via literary scholars’ social constructs and language. According to Tarozzi (2010), an interpretive philosophy allows the researcher to use several approaches to meet the study’s goals, aims, and R.Q.s. Interpretivism enabled intersubjectivity in the study.

Approach to research

The present research used induction to reach conclusions about the phenomena. As Chandra and Shang (2019) noted, the inductive approach’s flexibility allowed researchers to evaluate scholars’ perspectives, experiences, and perceptions of literature materials on the topical issues under study. According to McLaughlin (2012), an inductive technique allows a researcher to identify gaps in existing research via a review of prior sources, which was the basis of the present study (Knight & Wilson, 2016). In contrast, an inductive approach’s fundamental drawback is its restricted scope, which may limit the number of conclusions about a phenomenon (Howell, 2012). Since an inductive technique allowed an interpretivist philosophy to derive conclusions or assumptions from prior literary sources, the study’s results were enabled.

Research Method

Desk research was used in this study. According to Creswell (2013), desk-based research allows researchers to answer study R.Q.s. This study justified a desk-based method because it was suitable for acquiring secondary data sources from selected databases, allowing a practical assessment of the phenomenon under investigation (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Desk-based research allowed the researcher to correctly answer R.Q.s by analyzing current and credible secondary data sources. McLaughlin (2012) said that desk-based research is fast and trustworthy because it employs credible, transparent, and thorough search methods across several databases. In this desk-based study, the researcher assessed the prison system’s ability to reduce recidivism by assessing its current conditions, strategies, and regime work to create a rehabilitative culture (Denscombe, 2021). A desk-based strategy was also complementary to an interpretive ideology since it helped gather essential data on the U.K. prison system’s rehabilitation of male criminals (Ph.D., 2023). Thus, desk-based research was chosen for its speed and thoroughness in acquiring crucial information on the U.K. prison system and its rehabilitation from existing literature.

Research Design

The present study was exploratory. According to Creswell (2013), exploratory research is appropriate when few studies have been conducted on phenomena. Chandra and Shang (2019) have noted that exploratory design helps researchers comprehend an understudied social phenomenon. An exploratory design may not yield conclusive findings, but it does provide a viable opportunity to understand the practical and theoretical perspectives on the research problem (Chandra & Shang, 2019). According to Creswell and Creswell (2018), an exploratory design allows the researcher to detect secondary sources’ patterns, trends, inconsistencies, parallels, and anomalies and present the results. The exploratory strategy was suitable since it allowed the researcher to concentrate on secondary information sources and properly search, identify, and pick varied literature sources from the specified databases.

Literature Search Strategy

In qualitative research, a literature search approach involves searching trustworthy databases for information sources and selecting papers for evaluation. According to Gale et al. (2013), a systematic search strategy helps investigators concentrate on relevant and high-quality information sources, ensuring the validity and trustworthiness of study results. In this study, the Probation Services Department, Department of Prison database, Parliament of the U.K., and Population Statistics Database provided information on the U.K. prison system and its rehabilitation (Clark et al., 2021). The search approach then comprised constructing key phrases, words, and search keywords to find the best literature sources for the study after selecting the databases. According to Creswell (2013), key search phrases saved search time and ensured that the most relevant information sources that answered R.Q.s were used.

The keywords and phrases in this research were related to U.K. prisons and their rehabilitation of male criminals. Search criteria included “prison system,” “recidivism,” “causes,” “higher rate,” “male offending,” “United Kingdom,” and “rehabilitation. The researcher also used a Boolean search strategy that combined the primary category of Boolean operators “OR” and “AND.” Hart (2018) suggests that using Boolean operators in the search procedure helps narrow down the most valuable literature sources for a review while expanding the number of identified sources. The selected databases contained vital tools for the limit.

Standards for Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria

The researcher selected sources published between 2011 and 2021 to ensure only updated sources that supported the validity and reliability of the current results, as recommended by Smith and Firth (2021).

Criteria for Exclusion

As suggested by Hart (2018), summaries, letters, abstracts, grey literature, and reports were excluded due to a lack of analytical rigor. The eligibility criteria also considered the methodological designs of the sources by focusing on qualitative sources as part of the review process.

Scoping or systematic reviews, cohort studies, and cross-sectional sources were excluded because Aveyard (2019) advised focusing on qualitative sources depicting social constructions like the U.K. prison system to ensure study reliability (Burls, 2009). Sources that were irrelevant to the discourse about the U.K. prison system’s effectiveness were also excluded.

Search Results

The search and identification process yielded 850 sources from credible databases. Five hundred sources were eliminated based on eligibility criteria and the rule to eliminate duplicates and maintain study reliability, as reiterated by Smith and Firth (2011). Three hundred sources were classified as non-full and eliminated, while 200 were subjected to.

Validity and reliability

A study’s system’s validity connotes the extent or degree of correct determination or measurements of an idea or variable (Snyder, 2019). On the other hand, reliability refers to the level of consistency of the precise gadgets utilized to measure the variable or concept in an investigation state of affairs, as captured by Snyder (2019). As applied to present-day studies, content material validity has become a primary characteristic that exposes how different factors impact the rehabilitative characteristics of the jail system in the U.K. Consequently, to uphold content material validity, the studies targeted credible and applicable secondary resources acquired from the recognized databases, which accepted a conclusive appraisal and reaction to the advanced R.Q.s. The secondary resources depicted the studies and perceptions of the students and members inside the number one research concerning recidivism within the machine of the prison of the U.K. Therefore, the focus on secondary sources highlighted expected information regarding the subject derived from a preliminary detection of research gaps based totally on the literature review, consequently ensuring a higher level of consistency in the look. On the opposite hand, concerning reliability, in line with Smith and Firth (2011), upholding a higher reliability diploma in a research context requires minimizing the assets of dimension mistakes, such as biases, human mistakes, environmental, procedural, and instrumental errors (Worthington, 2022). As carried out to the present day observation, the research limited the unfairness in information collection via relying on particular databases, and only outstanding sources obtained under the rigorous eligibility criteria were utilized, consequently ensuring reliability.

Data Analysis

The statistics accumulated from the complex search system within the present-day study were analyzed using thematic evaluation techniques. According to Aveyard (2019) and Creswell and Creswell (2018), thematic analysis is crucial in qualitative statistics evaluation because that technique allows the researcher to analyze the data in a manner that responds to the R.Q.s and displays the advanced targets of the examination. Additionally, thematic evaluation permitted the researcher to correctly perceive the styles, traits, similarities, regularities, or variations inherent in the decided resources of literature (Creswell, 2013). Consequently, the analysis of information acquired inside the modern look is targeted at the frequency of the issues to document the findings from the literature sources.

Ethical Consideration

The researcher, using a cutting-edge approach, found all the moral and professional pointers manually collected and used secondary information as stipulated by the college. Human items did now not directly form a part of the research as the investigator no longer had interaction in the number one information series. Consequently, it became optional for the researcher to reap ethical approval before the graduation of the contemporary have a look at. However, the researcher reviewed the published research received for the present-day evaluation to ensure they were ethically permitted, thereby stopping any capacity replication of unethically carried-out studies. Additionally, the researcher targeted concerns about the fabrication of resources, quotations, and plagiarism. According to Mayring (2015), fabrication of resources and plagiarism negatively affect the validity and reliability of a take a look at its final results, as reflected in records reporting carelessness. Hewitt-Taylor (2017) cited plagiarism as using words/phrases or facts from a student without acknowledging the resources of the details. As carried out to the present day studies, the troubles of fabrication of sources, citation, and plagiarism have been addressed using conducting the studies based totally on the stipulated hints via correct and sincere quotation of the sources (Ryan et al., 2007b). Therefore, the researcher adhered to ethical recommendations by using accurate referencing, in-textual content quotations, and bibliographic referencing, as advised by Hollway and Jefferson (2013).

Limitations

The barriers to the contemporary look that affected the procedure of setting off a final touch of the research as stipulated inside the thought include the reliance on different databases for the secondary data assets. As defined by Hart (2018), the focus on various databases for a search method of literature will increase the database and citation bias, which adversely affects the reliability and transferability of the search for outcomes. For example, the use of particular databases usually means that the studies targeted unique databases for credible information compared to others, thereby strengthening the prejudice. However, the researcher inside the modern observe sufficiently addressed the concerns on database and citation bias by way of relying on four databases comprising the Probation Services Department, the Department of Prison database, the Parliament of the U.K., and the Population Statistics Database, which facilitated acquiring records at the system of prison in the U.K. and the effectiveness of its rehabilitative measures. By using several databases for the search procedure, the studies overcame the hindrance, as supported by Aveyard (2019). Overall, the researcher alleviated the prejudice concerns via correct and honest citation of the secondary resources of statistics amassed for the examination during the presentation of the results, thereby upholding the reliability and credibility of the study’s findings.

Chapter 4: Results and Discussion

This chapter presents the findings from evaluating secondary sources associated with the United Kingdom jail system’s effectiveness in rehabilitating male offenders and decreasing recidivism. The discussion explores the themes diagnosed and their connection to the study’s questions.

The analysis discovered a disconnect between the supposed purpose of rehabilitation packages and rising recidivism fees in the U.K. Studies by Gannon et al. (2019) and Durjava (2018) highlighted the ineffectiveness of modern-day packages in deterring reoffending. Mpofu et al. (2018) similarly emphasized this subject with their locating that 57.8% of prisoners launched in 2015 re-angry within two years. These findings suggest that the United Kingdom prison system is failing to safely cope with the primary causes of criminal behavior, leading to a revolving door of incarceration and recidivism.

Financial constraints and declining jail employees were recognized as sizable boundaries to effective rehabilitation. Studies with the aid of H.M. Treasury (2016) and Gauke (2019) documented funding cuts impacting the quality of jail services and staffing ranges. Thornton, Pearson, and Andrews (2015) similarly emphasized the poor impact of team worker shortages in delivering rehabilitation applications. These barriers restrict the potential of jail staff to provide adequate support and steering to offenders, jeopardizing their possibilities of successful reintegration into society.

The research indicates a prevailing tradition of punishment within the U.K. prison system, doubtlessly overshadowing rehabilitation efforts. Studies using Sered, Tafte, and Russell (2021) argued that punishment severity and incarceration lengths do not always deter recidivism. Additionally, studies using Maruna (2017) suggest that incarceration might even avert social relationships, hindering rehabilitation. This cognizance of punishment contributes to the excessive recidivism charges in the U.K.

The studies additionally diagnosed opportunity tactics for rehabilitation that show promise. Studies using Murhula, Singh, and Nunlall (2019) endorsed extensive supervision packages with regular tracking and help for parolees. While Zurhold and Stöver (2016) did not discover a widespread discount in recidivism with in-depth supervision throughout all prisons, their studies suggest a need for additional exploration of this technique. Additionally, the fantastic effect of rehabilitation treatment options highlighted by Mitchell et al. (2017) and Latessa, Johnson, and Koetzle (2020) suggests that these packages can effectively lower recidivism when applied efficiently.

The reliance on secondary statistics sources is an issue for this study. Additionally, the point of interest in posted research might exclude treasured insights from practitioners within the jail system (Ryan et al., 2007a). Future research may want to deal with these limitations by incorporating primary statistics series through interviews with jail staff and offenders.

The findings of this evaluation paint a better picture of the U.K. prison gadget’s effectiveness in rehabilitating male offenders. The high recidivism charges suggest a massive hole between the system’s intended motive and actual outcomes. Funding cuts, staffing shortages, and an overemphasis on punishment appear as contributing elements (Ryan et al., 2007b). The research also identifies promising alternative processes, which include in-depth supervision applications and sturdy rehabilitation healing procedures, that warrant similar exploration and implementation.

References

Aveyard, H. (2019). Doing a literature review in health and social care: a practical guide (4th Edition) Open University Press.

Bagnall, A.M., South, J., Hulme, C., Woodall, J., Vinall-Collier, K., Raine, G., Kinsella, K., Dixey, R., Harris, L. & Wright, N.M. (2015). A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer education and peer support in prisons. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 1–30.

Bales, W.D., Clark, C., Scaggs, S., Ensley, D., Coltharp, P., Singer, A. and Blomberg, T.G. (2016). An assessment of the effectiveness of prison work release programs on post-release recidivism and employment. National Institute of Justice.

Beaudry, G., Yu, R., Perry, A.E. and Fazel, S. (2021). Effectiveness of psychological interventions in prison to reduce recidivism: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. The Lancet Psychiatry, 8(9), pp.759-773.

Bell, J., & Walter, S. (2018). You are doing your Research Project: A Guide for First-Time Researchers (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Beyens, K., Boone, M., Dunkel, F., McIvor, G. and Graham, H. (2016). Creativity and effectiveness in the use of electronic monitoring: A case study of five jurisdictions.

Brunton-Smith, I. & McCarthy, D.J. (2016). Prison legitimacy and procedural fairness: A multilevel examination of prisoners in England and Wales. Justice Quarterly, 33(6), 1029–1054.

Burls, A. (2009). What is Critical Appraisal? Evidence-Based Medicine (2nd ed.). What is…? Series.

Chandra, Y., & Shang, L. (2019). Qualitative Research Using R: A Systematic Approach. New York: Springer.

Clark, T., Foster, L., Sloan, L., & Bryman, A. (2021). Bryman’s Social Research Methods (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. and Aiken, L. (2013). We applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.

Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Creswell, J. and Creswell, D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Cullen, F.T., Jonson, C.L. & Mears, D.P. (2017). Reinventing community corrections. Crime and Justice, 46(1), 27–93.

Deitch, M. (2020). Raising Arizona’s Commitment to Health and Safety: The Need for Independent Oversight of Arizona’s Prison System. Ariz. St. LJ, 52, p.811.

Denscombe, M. (2021). The Good Research Guide: Research methods for small scale social research projects (7th ed.). Open University Press.

Durjava, L. (2018). Effectiveness of prison-based opioid substitution treatment: a systematic review. MOJ Addict Med Ther, 5(4), 178–187.

Ekanayake, E.M.V.O. and Madhuwanthi, L.P. (2018). Effectiveness of Prison-based Vocational Training Programs for Female Inmates in Sri Lanka: Trainers’ Perspectives.

Ellison, M., Szifris, K., Horan, R. and Fox, C. (2017). A Rapid Evidence Assessment of the effectiveness of prison education in reducing recidivism and increasing employment. Probation Journal, 64(2), pp.108-128.

Gale, N.K., Heath, G., Cameron, E. et al. (2013). Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol, pp. 13, 117. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-117

Gannon, T.A., Olver, M.E., Mallion, J.S. & James, M. (2019). Does specialized psychological treatment for offending reduce recidivism? A meta-analysis examining staff and program variables as predictors of treatment effectiveness. Clinical Psychology Review, 73, p.101752.

Gauke, D. (2019). Government response to the Prison Service Pay Review Body recommendations 19/20: Written statement– HCWS1768, parliament.uk, retrieved 20 Dec 2021, www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2019-07-22/HCWS1768

Gobeil, R., Blanchette, K. and Stewart, L. (2016). A meta-analytic review of correctional interventions for women offenders: Gender-neutral versus gender-informed approaches. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(3), pp.301-322.

Grills, C., Villanueva, S., Anderson, M., Corsbie-Massay, C.L., Smith, B., Johnson, L. & Owens, K. (2015). Effectiveness of choice theory connections: A cross-sectional and comparative analysis of California female inmates. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(7), 757–771.

Hanson, R.K., Bourgon, G., McGrath, R.J., Kroner, D., D’Amora, D.A., Thomas, S.S. and Tavarez, L.P. (2017). A five-level risk and needs system: Maximizing assessment results in corrections through the development of a common language. WS Hein.

Hart, C. (2018). Doing a literature review: releasing the research imagination. (London: Sage).

Hewitt-Taylor, J. (2017). The Essential Guide to doing a health and social care literature review, Routledge.

H.M. Treasury. (2016). Autumn Statement 2016, Cm 9362, The Stationery Office, 2016, p. 45, retrieved 20 Dec 2021, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/571559/autumn_statement_2016_web.pdf

Hucklesby, A., Beyens, K., Boone, M., Dunkel, F., McIvor, G. & Graham, H. (2016). Creativity and effectiveness in electronic monitoring: A case study of five jurisdictions.

Huynh, K.H., Hall, B., Hurst, M.A. and Bikos, L.H. (2015). Evaluation of the positive re-entry in corrections program: A positive psychology intervention with prison inmates. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(9), pp.1006-1023.

James, N. (2018). Risk and needs assessment in the federal prison system—Congressional Research Service, p. 10.

Johnson, J.E., Stout, R.L., Miller, T.R., Zlotnick, C., Cerbo, L.A., Andrade, J.T., Nargiso, J., Bonner, J. and Wiltsey-Stirman, S. (2019). We randomized cost-effectiveness trial of group interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) for prisoners with significant depression—Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 87(4), p.392.

Knight, C., & Wilson, K. (2016). Transgender people in the criminal justice system. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans People (LGBT) and the Criminal Justice System, pp. 147–178. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-49698-0_7

Kruze, E. and Priede, J. (2020). Cost-effectiveness of Prison System Development-Comparison of the European Countries. European Integration Studies, (14), pp.69-79.

Kuria, N. (2020). Effectiveness of Art Therapy as Treatment for Depression among Incarcerated Women: A Case of Langata Women’s Prison Nairobi-Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, United States International University-Africa).

Latessa, E.J., Johnson, S.L. and Koetzle, D. (2020). What works (and does not) in reducing recidivism? Routledge.

Law, F.M. & Guo, G.J. (2016). Correlation of Hope and self-efficacy with Job Satisfaction, job stress, and organizational Commitment for correctional officers in the Taiwan Prison System. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60(11), 1257–1277.

Liebrenz, M., Gamma, A., Buadze, A., Schleifer, R., Baggio, S., Schwartz, B., Schneeberger, A. and Uchtenhagen, A. (2020). Fifteen years of heroin-assisted treatment in a Swiss prison— a retrospective cohort study. Harm reduction journal, 17(1), pp.1-8.

MacKenzie, D.L. & Farrington, D.P. (2015). Preventing future offending of delinquents and offenders: What have we learned from experiments and meta-analyses? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(4), 565–595.

Mansoor, M., Perwez, S.K., Swamy, T.N.V.R. and Ramaseshan, H. (2015). A critical review on the role of the prison environment on stress and psychiatric problems among prisoners. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(1 S1), pp.218-218.

Maruna, S. (2017). Qualitative research, theory development, and evidence-based corrections: Can success stories be “evidence”? In Qualitative research in criminology (pp. 311–337). Routledge.

Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical background and procedures. In Approaches to Qualitative Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 365–380). (Springer, Dordrecht).

McLaughlin, H. (2012). Understanding Social Work Research. New York: Sage.

Ministry of Justice (MOJ). (2019). ‘HMPPS Annual Digest 2018/19’, Ministry of Justice.

Mitchell, O., Cochran, J.C., Mears, D.P. & Bales, W.D. (2017). The effectiveness of prison for reducing drug offender recidivism: A regression discontinuity analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(1), 1–27.

Moule, P. (2021). Making Sense of Research in Health and Social Care (7th ed.). Sage.

Mpofu, E., Athanasou, J.A., Rafe, C. & Belshaw, S.H. (2018). Cognitive-behavioral therapy efficacy for reducing recidivism rates of moderate-and high-risk sexual offenders: A scoping systematic literature review. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(1), 170–186.

Mudzimiri, K. (2016). The effectiveness of rehabilitation programs implemented by ZPCS: A case study of Mazowe Farm Prison 2014-2016 (Doctoral dissertation, BUSE).

Mulgrew, L. (2022). Co-responding police and mental health service models: An exploration of how effective collaborative models are in responding to individuals experiencing a mental health crisis. British Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 11(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjmh.2020.0030

Murhula, P.B.B., Singh, S.B. and Nunlall, R. (2019). A Critical Analysis on Offenders Rehabilitation Approach in South Africa: A Review of the Literature. African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies: AJCJS, 12(1), pp.21-43.

Newbury-Birch, D., McGovern, R., Birch, J., O’Neill, G., Kaner, H., Sondhi, A. & Lynch, K. (2016). A rapid systematic review of what we know about alcohol use disorders and brief interventions in the criminal justice system. International Journal of Prisoner Health.

Newsome, J. & Cullen, F.T. (2017). The risk-need-responsivity model revisited: Using biosocial criminology to enhance offender rehabilitation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(8), 1030–1049.

Olonisakin, T.T., Ogunleye, A.J. & Adebayo, S.O. (2017). The Nigeria criminal justice system and its effectiveness in criminal behavior control: A Social-psychological analysis. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 22(2), 33–48.

Ostermann, M., Salerno, L.M. & Hyatt, J.M. (2015). How different operationalizations of recidivism impact conclusions of effectiveness of parole supervision. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(6), 771–796.

Padfield, N. (2018). Monitoring prisons in England and Wales: Who ensures the fair treatment of prisoners? Crime, law, and social change, 70(1), 57–76.

Papalia, N., Spivak, B., Daffern, M. and Ogloff, J.R. (2019). A meta‐analytic review of the efficacy of psychological treatments for violent offenders in correctional and forensic mental health settings. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 26(2), p.e12282.

Petrović, V., Jovanić, G. and Luković, M. (2017). Effectiveness of prison work programs: Examples of specific programs in the USA. Specijalna edukacija i rehabilitacija, 16(4), pp.491-516.

PHD, B. T. (2023). The Prison Economy Secrets Vol. I: Slavery, Jim Crow, greed, pollution, mental health, drugs, sex, murder, parole and probation defects, and mass incarcerations of the poor in the United States and around the world. Integrative Medical Press.

Porporino, F.J. (2018). Developments and challenges in probation practice: Is there a way forward for establishing effective and sustainable probation systems? European Journal of Probation, 10(1), pp.76-95.

Rogers, L., Simonot, M. & Nartey, A. (2015). Prison educators: Professionalism against the odds. University and College Union.

Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P. (2007a). Step-by-Step Guide to Critiquing Research, Part 1: Quantitative Research. British Journal of Nursing, 16(12).

Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P. (2007b). Step-by-Step Guide to Critiquing Research, Part 2: Qualitative Research. British Journal of Nursing, 16(12).

Seewald, K., Rossegger, A., Gerth, J., Urbaniok, F., Phillips, G. and Endrass, J. (2018). Effectiveness of a risk–need–responsivity‐based treatment program for violent and sexual offenders: Results of a retrospective, quasi‐experimental study. Legal and criminological psychology, 23(1), pp.85-99.

Sered, S.S., Tafte, E. and Russell, C. (2021). Ineffectiveness of prison-based therapy: The case for community-based alternatives.

Serin, R.C. & Lloyd, C.D. (2017). Understanding and integrating the risk, need, and responsivity (RNR) model and crime desistance perspective into correctional practice.

Smith, J., & Firth, J. (2011). Qualitative data analysis: the framework approach. Nurse Researcher, 18(2), 52–62.

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, pp. 104, 333–339.

South, J., Woodall, J., Kinsella, K. & Bagnall, A.M. (2016). A qualitative synthesis of the positive and negative impacts related to the delivery of peer-based health interventions in prison settings. BMC Health Services Research, 16(1), 1–8.

Tarozzi, M. (2010). Phenomenology and Human Science Research Today. New York: Zeta Books.

Thornton D, Pearson J & Andrews E. (2015). Managing with Less: The 2015 Spending Review, Institute for Government, retrieved 20 Dec 2021, www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/ files/publications/Managing_With_Less_WEB_0.pdf

Topçuoğlu, T. (2016). Effectiveness of prison-based drug treatment programs: a systematic review of meta-analyses. Addicta Turk J Addict, 3(1), pp.110-124.

Van Dyken, E.L. (2015). I am using wastewater analysis to measure the prevalence of prison drug use and the effectiveness of prison drug use supply reduction strategies (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tasmania).

Wong, K. and Horan, R. (2021). Mentoring: Can you get too much of a ‘good thing’? Proposing enhancements to the ‘effectiveness framework’ of the England and Wales Prison and Probation Service. European Journal of Probation, p.20662203211024105.

Worthington, R. (2022). What support interventions are helpful for families and carers of autistic people in the criminal justice system? Working with Autistic People in the Criminal Justice and Forensic Mental Health Systems, pp. 135–148. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003036722-14

Wright, K.A. & Gifford, F.E. (2017). Legal cynicism, antisocial attitudes, and recidivism: Implications for a procedurally just community corrections. Victims & Offenders, 12(4), 624–642.

Zarkin, G.A., Cowell, A.J., Hicks, K.A., Mills, M.J., Belenko, S., Dunlap, L.J. & Keyes, V. (2015). Lifetime benefits and costs of diverting substance-abusing offenders from state prison. Crime & Delinquency, 61(6), 829–850.

Zurhold, H. and Stöver, H. (2016). Provision of harm reduction and drug treatment services in custodial settings–Findings from the European ACCESS study. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 23(2), pp.127-134.