Young Offenders Speak About Meeting Their Victims: Implications for Future Programs

Victim–offender mediation (VOM) programs have gained considerable popularity in juvenile courts, yet little is known about how these programs actually influence offenders. This paper explores young offenders’ subjective experiences of voluntary participation in a county‐run VOM program in Minnesota. The authors conducted in‐depth, qualitative interviews with seven young offenders (aged 15–24), and four sets of their parents, who had recently participated in a VOM session with their crime victim(s). Data analysis revealed varying motivations for the offenders’ participation in the sessions, a range of emotional consequences, and some potential for enduring behavior change. Based on these findings, the authors propose guidelines for future practice and research with young people involved in mediation, conferencing, and restorative justice programs.     

Two heads are better than one? How to effectively use two interviewers to elicit cues to deception

Background. We examined the effect of a second interviewer's demeanour on cues to deception. We predicted that a supportive demeanour would be the most beneficial for eliciting verbal cues to deceit, as it would encourage truth tellers, but not liars, to say more. In addition, we examined the extent to which interviewees deliberately made eye contact with the interviewers. Liars take their credibility less for granted than truth tellers, and therefore have a greater drive to be convincing. Liars are thus more likely to monitor the interviewer to determine if the interviewer appears to believe them. Method. Participants appeared before two interviewers: the first asked all the questions and the second remained silent. The second interviewer exhibited either a supportive, neutral, or a suspicious demeanour. Results. Truth tellers provided significantly more detail than liars, but only in the supportive second interviewer condition. The effect of a second interviewer's demeanour on detail was perhaps remarkable given that the interviewees hardly looked at the second interviewer (less than 10% of the time). Liars displayed more deliberate eye contact (with the first interviewer) than truth tellers did. Conclusions. A supportive second interviewer has a positive effect on interviewing. We discuss this finding in the wider contexts of investigative interviewing and interviewing to detect deception.     

Evaluation of the ADViSOR project: Cross‐situational behaviour monitoring of high‐risk offenders in prison and the community

Purpose. The release on licence of prisoners who have committed serious violent and/or sexual offences requires rigorous risk assessment and risk management. This study evaluates the ADViSOR project, designed to examine the contribution of prison behaviour monitoring to community supervision of a sample of the highest risk offenders released in England and Wales under Multi‐Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). Method. The offence‐related behaviour of a total group (n= 25) of MAPPA prisoners in one prison, due for release in the following year to two adjacent probation trust areas, was monitored. Their behaviours in the community were followed up for 1 year. A comparison group (n= 36) was formed of the total number of MAPPA prisoners released from prisons nationally to the same two probation trusts. Results. The frequencies of ADViSOR negative behaviours in prison and the community were strongly correlated, r_s (25) = .55, p= .004, as were positive behaviours, r_s (25) = .56, p= .004. No statistically significant correlations were found either under usual MAPPA processes in the ADViSOR prison or comparison group prisons. The frequency of ADViSOR negative behaviours statistically significantly predicted, with 92% accuracy, the offenders who would reoffend or be recalled to prison (n= 8). Statistically significant similarities in types of behaviour were also identified. Conclusion. Results are discussed in terms of the contribution of behavioural monitoring to risk prediction with high‐risk offenders, consistency of cross‐situational behaviours, and implications for policy and practice.     

Reducing criminal recidivism: evaluation of Citizenship, an evidence-based probation supervision process

‘Citizenship’ is a structured probation supervision program based on ‘what works’ principles, designed for offenders on community orders or licenses supervised within the UK National Probation Service. The program was evaluated using survival analysis comparing the reconvictions of a cohort of all offenders in one probation area eligible for Citizenship over a 2-year period (n = 3,819) with those of a retrospective cohort of all eligible offenders in the same probation area receiving ‘traditional’ probation supervision (n = 2,110), controlling for risk related factors. At the 2-year stage, 50% of offenders in the comparison group had reoffended compared to 41% in the experimental group, and the difference between the survival curves was statistically significant. The hazard ratio was 0.69, which represents a 31% reduction in reconvictions in the experimental group over the proportion in the comparison group at any given time. Time to violation of a supervision order or post custody license was also statistically significantly longer in the experimental group. A key element of the program, promoting contact with community support agencies, was statistically significantly related to reduced reoffending in the Citizenship group. The overall effects remained after controlling for differences in risk scores although effectiveness varied by risk level. Contrary to other ‘what works’ research findings, the program was found to be most effective across the low–medium and medium–high risk thresholds, and was not effective with the highest risk group. This difference can be explained and is discussed in terms of risk, need, and responsivity principles. The Citizenship program was found to be cost-beneficial.