Program Profile: Enhanced Thinking Skills (England)

This is a prison-based, cognitive–behavioral skills enhancement program in England. The program is rated Effective. Program participants showed statistically significant reductions in reconviction rates and frequency of reoffending, compared with nonparticipants. However, there was no statistically significant difference between groups in severe offense reconviction rates.

An Effective rating implies that implementing the program is likely to result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals

Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS) is a cognitive–behavioral skills program administered in prison. It is intended to decrease reconviction by targeting participants’ thinking patterns and cognitive skills. ETS treatment targets a range of topics such as impulse control, flexible thinking, values and moral reasoning, interpersonal problem solving, social perspective taking, and critical reasoning. These targets are arranged according to the stages-of-change model, which includes acceptance of problems, desire for change, taking action, maintaining new behaviors, and relapse prevention.

Target Population/Eligibility

This program targets medium-to-high risk and high-risk male and females in Her Majesty’s (HM) Prison Service in England.

Program Components

ETS is a manualized program that consists of 20 interactive sessions, which last 2 hours each. The sessions are offered three to five times a week for 4 to 6 weeks. The program is administered by prison staff and consists of a maximum of 10 participants. Sessions are interactive and involve role play, exercises, discussions among participants to draw out principles that have been covered during the session, and assignments (to be completed in between sessions).

Program Theory  

The program is founded on the belief that cognitive skill deficiencies, which have been associated with offending behavior, can be strengthened through targeted skills enhancement (Friendship et al. 2003). These skills are directly addressed during the ETS sessions.

Study

Friendship and colleagues (2003) applied a retrospective quasi-experimental design, given that analysis was conducted after the Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS) intervention took place, using administrative data. The program was implemented in a prison setting, and study participants were selected if they met the following criteria: adult males, who had been released for at least 2 years following a sentence of at least 2 years. Results from the similar Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R) program, which led to the development of ETS, were analyzed together. Treatment group participants must have voluntarily participated in either R&R or ETS between 1994 and 1996; however, program completion was not an eligibility requirement for inclusion in the study. A total of 667 made up the treatment group.

Control group participants met the same criteria, but had never participated in either program. A total of 1,801 made up the control group. Study participants were selected using the Inmate Information System (IIS), an internal database used by the prison service. A systematic matching method was applied using the following variables: current offense, sentence length, age at discharge, age at sentence, year of discharge, number of previous sentences, and probability of reconviction score measured using the Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS).

There were significant differences between the treatment and control groups on all matching variables, which is a limitation of the non-randomized experimental design. Logistic regression was used to determine if there was a relationship between the variables in the model and reconviction among the sample. A forward-selection stepwise method was applied. Subgroup analyses were conducted to determine the potential effect of risk level on program outcomes.

Study

Sadlier and colleagues (2010) used a retrospective quasi-experimental design to examine ETS. This evaluation differed from the previous 2003 study by Friendship and colleagues by including dynamic risk factor variables and other rich static risk factors into the model to improve matching between study groups. One-year reconviction outcomes for the treatment group were compared with those in a matched comparison group who did not participate in ETS. Pairs were matched across 42 variables using radius matching. There were no significant differences between treatment and control groups.

Outcomes of interest included reconviction rates, frequency of reoffending convictions, and severe offense reconviction rates. Data was collected from four administrative data sets. The first set included the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR) prisoner survey sample, which measures dynamic risk factors such as attitudes about offending, drug use, and motivation. The second set came from the Offending Behavior Programme Interventions Database, which measured when the person participated in ETS. The third set, from Offender Assessment System (OASys), provided data from a needs and static risk assessment that included information such as age, gender, marital status, and family criminal history. Lastly, the Police National Computer (PNC) measured criminal history and reconviction data. The final sample consisted of 2,771 individuals, 87 percent of which were men and 13 percent of which were women. Of this total sample, 257 incarcerated persons were treated through ETS participation; this left 2,514 individuals from which to select matches via propensity score matching. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

Study

Travers and colleagues (2013) used an observational evaluation to compare reconviction outcomes of 17,047 males serving a minimum sentence of 1 year who had participated in ETS with those of a 19,792-participant control group who had not participated in ETS. The program sample was 79.2 percent white, 13.3 percent Black, 5.1 percent Asian, and 0.4 percent other. The mean age at release for the program sample was 30 years. The control group was 80.9 percent white, 11.3 percent Black, 5.6 percent Asian, and 0.6 percent other. The mean age at release for the control group was 29 years.

Measurements were taken 2 years following release. Reconviction data was collected via the Home Office Police National Computer (HOPNC). A risk of reconviction score, within 2 years of release, was calculated using the Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS). Chi-square tests were used to determine differences in reconviction rates among different risk groups. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

Subgroup Analysis

Friendship and colleagues (2003) conducted subgroup analyses to determine the potential effect of risk level on program outcomes. Medium-low- and medium-high-risk level individuals had a statistically significant lower likelihood of being reconvicted after 2 years. The difference between low- and high-risk individuals was not statistically significant.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for Adults at Moderate- and High-Risk of Offending

This is a problem-focused, therapeutic approach that attempts to help people identify and change dysfunctional beliefs, thoughts, and patterns of behavior that contribute to their problems. For adults, CBT teaches them how cognitive deficits, distortion, and flawed thinking processes can lead to criminal behavior. The practice is rated Promising for reducing crime committed by moderate- and high-risk adults.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Adult Reentry Programs

This practice involves correctional programs that focus on the transition of individuals from prison into the community. Reentry programs involve treatment or services that have been initiated while the individual is in custody and a follow-up component after the individual is released. The practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Rehabilitation Programs for Adults Convicted of a Crime

This practice includes programs that are designed to reduce recidivism among adults by improving their behaviors, skills, mental health, social functioning, and access to education and employment. They may become participants in rehabilitation programs during multiple points in their involvement with the criminal justice system. This practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism among adults who have been convicted of an offense.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Cognitive–Behavioral Interventions for Justice-Involved Juveniles and Young Adults Adjudicated for an Offense in Europe

This practice involves the use of cognitive–behavioral interventions to reduce the reoffending of juveniles and young adults adjudicated for an offense in Europe. Cognitive–behavioral interventions include various similar therapies, including thinking skills programs, social skills and problem-solving approaches, and reinforcement of behavioral change. This practice is rated Promising for the reduction of reoffending.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Psychological Treatments for Adults With Histories of Violent Offending

This practice consists of talk-based therapies aimed at reducing violent, aggressive, or antisocial behavior of adults with a history of violent offending. Therapies include cognitive-behavioral therapy, anger management programs, and violence reduction programs. This practice is rated Promising for reducing trait anger and impulsivity and for improving social problem solving, and general social skills. This practice is rated Ineffective for reducing antisocial cognitions.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Trait anger
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Impulsivity
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Social problem solving
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - General social skills
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Antisocial cognitions

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?