Exploring Models of Care and the Perceived Impact in an Offender Rehabilitation Program

Abstract

Offender rehabilitation programs incorporating positive psychology interventions such as a strengths-based model can be effective. This study explores the perceived model of service provided by an offender rehabilitation service and the perceived impact that this service has on the lives of its clients. A qualitative methodology was employed in the context of an action research design, using semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis which is an independent and reliable approach to qualitative analysis. The findings suggest that participants perceive the organization to be operating a strengths-based approach and this is perceived as having the potential to have a range of positive effects for clients. Some contrasting views were also identified within the participant groups and these are discussed in this paper. The results of this study complement the existing research and have several implications for future research in this area.

Keywords

model of care perceived impact offender rehabilitation strengths-based model

Introduction

There are over 10 million individuals in prison worldwide and this figure continues to grow, with more than 30 million people being released from prison annually (Walmsley, 2016). A systematic review by Yukhnenko et al. (2020) reported that in the US, 68% of offenders will be reconvicted within 3 years of release, in Australia 44.8% of prisoners released in 1 year were back in prison within 2 years, and in the UK the 1 year reconviction rate was 48%. The Irish Prison Services’ (IPS) annual report states that over 2,000 prisoners were released into the community in 2017 (IPS, 2017). A report found that, within 3 years, the recidivism rate of offenders in Ireland was 62.3% and that two thirds of re-offences happened within 6 months of release (IPS, 2013). It is recognized worldwide that the health burden of violence and crime is increasing (World Health Organization, 2014), therefore reducing recidivism can largely contribute to public safety and public health (Yukhnenko et al., 2020). Given the rate of prisoners transitioning back into the community, there is a need to establish interventions designed to support successful reintegration (Hunter et al., 2016). Within this context, the present study reports an action research project, designed to examine the model of reintegration in a non-profit, community-based organization.

It has been suggested that the traditional offender reintegration model focuses on systematic processes at the expense of agency, adopts negative intervention goals and views individuals as risk factors rather than as persons (Ward & Maruna, 2007). Evidence suggests that traditional reintegration programs have failed to reduce the rate of recidivism as past approaches were often based on the idea of tougher treatment (Spencer & Jones-Walker, 2004) and focused on the legal relationship between the state and the offender and did not value the interests of the victims or the wider community (Ward et al., 2014). Gendreau (1996) concluded that the intensification of punishment does not result in a reduction in criminal activity while, Izzo and Ross (1990) reported that additional and more severe punishment does not reduce criminal activity. These arguments have been used to address problems with rehabilitation programs in modern society. The papers mentioned above are somewhat outdated and one might question their ability to inform current rehabilitation frameworks and strategies. Therefore, to tackle this issue effectively, more current and relevant research is required, nonetheless, it has been suggested that the “get tough” approach to correctional reintegration is too simplistic (Spencer & Jones-Walker, 2004), as studies show that many variables can impact successful offender rehabilitation. Ward and Maruna (2007) highlight that offender reintegration frameworks are reluctant to give values and self-narratives a central place in the desistance journey and fail to appreciate that risk is as much a contextual and social factor as a psychological one. Elliott et al. (1998) state that we must deal simultaneously with individual variables and contextual factors for correctional rehabilitation to have a significant impact.

There has been a slow shift toward a positive psychology approach as an effective alternative to the traditional model of offender treatment (Wormith et al., 2007). The theory behind the use of positive psychology in community integration and recidivism suggests that promoting positive traits, human strengths, wellbeing or optimal functioning can help individuals find meaning and purpose to their lives (Bolier et al., 2013). For example, Shuker and Newton (2008) concluded from their study that changes in mental health and wellbeing can occur in conjunction with reduction in offending risk, they found that a strengths-based approach, such as improving wellbeing and personal adjustment, along with risk reduction interventions result in effective rehabilitation (Shuker & Newton, 2008). Hunter et al. (2016) evaluated the effectiveness of a strength-based model of intervention, they concluded that an offender rehabilitation program incorporating strengths-based models can be effective if the program focuses on the building of personal strengths and increasing wellbeing. Bolton et al. (2016) explored the use of a solution-focused intervention program in the treatment of violent offenders. The results from this study indicated that there were four main themes that represented participants self-determined goals as part of their involvement in this study. Bolton et al. (2016) argue that the results from their study offer insight into the type of goals useful and important in the process of change while in offender rehabilitation treatment. These studies suggest that promoting wellbeing amongst former offenders should not only increase their happiness but also reduce the risk of recidivism (Ward & Maruna, 2007). Ward et al. (2014) suggest that reintegration programs should be designed to provide individuals with the social and psychological resources to pursue important goals in acceptable ways and, therefore, should reduce offenders’ potential to commit crimes.

The principles of positive psychology are slowly being introduced into modern interventions and rehabilitation frameworks such as the Good Lives Model (Ward & Stewart, 2003) and the Reasoning and Rehabilitation Model (Ross & Fabiano, 1985). The GLM assumes that by increasing an offenders capacity to live a fulfilling and meaningful life and enabling them to reach their goals in socially acceptable ways, they will no longer see the need to engage in criminal activity to reach their goals and thus risk is reduced (Ward et al., 2014). The R&R aims to improve offenders thinking skills, teaching them to be more reflexive, open-minded, and capable of planning (Redondo et al., 2012). The above-mentioned models incorporate a multi-dimensional approach to community re-integration. Although there is research to support this approach to offender rehabilitation, this support is limited. One limitation evident is that the methodologies differ, and this may impact the validity of these studies since a valid method of evaluating rehabilitation services has not been established. Another limitation is that they are conducted on different types of participants and offenders, bringing into question the reliability and generalizability of these results. Further research consisting of similar methodologies and analyses are required in order to fully understand the impact of strengths-based models when developing offender rehabilitation programs. There is a lack of replication of the studies that are available, highlighting the need for further research in this area. It has also been suggested that the majority of research still focuses on the ability of programs to reduce criminal behavior and re-entry rates, while only a relatively small percentage of this research has closely examined the process of reintegration or the range of effects it can have (Spencer & Jones-Walker, 2004).It is important that research in the field of offender rehabilitation is carried out as this may shed light on how to increase the psychological wellbeing of offenders, thus reducing criminality and contributing to public safety and public health.

This study is conducted in the context of Irish reintegration services, specifically an organization called Care After Prison (CAP). This is a grassroot organization that was set up without a specific service model or program model influencing service delivery. Therefore, the aim was to identify a service model, by examining the perspectives of key stakeholders, which can be critical for effective service provision (Barnao et al., 2015; Robertson et al., 2020). Specific research questions were:

To what extent is a strengths-based approach employed and promoted in the service?

What is the potential of the service to impact on the lives of the clients in a positive and meaningful way?

Method

Research Context

This study is conducted in the context of Irish reintegration services, specifically a national peer-led criminal justice charity called Care After Prison (CAP). CAP’s objective is to support people affected by imprisonment, current and former offenders and their families (Care After Prison, 2018). Services offered include a peer mentoring program, a community voluntary program (CVP), family support services and a community support scheme (CSS). The peer mentoring program links newly released offenders with the support and guidance of peers who have successfully made the reintegration journey. The CVP is a voluntary structured program whereby former offenders are encouraged, guided and supported to help them resettle and reintegrate. The CSS is a structured form of temporary release for prisoners. The CSS was set up to reduce prison overcrowding and to reduce recidivism rates amongst short term offenders.

At the time of the evaluation, no specific model was identified as underpinning the work of the organization, hence the aim of the present study. As part of the context, it is noted that the lead researcher was a postgraduate student, with a background in psychology; the second author was the CEO of CAP, while the final author was the researcher supervisor, who had an established profile in service evaluation in different settings. The CEO served to advise on the local context and the wider sector, but was not directly involved in data collection or analysis.

Research Design

The research was undertaken as an action research study, as the CEO initiated the research, collaborated in the research, and the research was developed with direct input from the organization. The aim was to conduct a formative exploration that would inform the organization’s reflections on its role and function, rather than an outcomes driven evaluation. In this context the focus was on ensuring that the work was informed and shaped by the organization, and importantly positioned to have an impact. A qualitative approach was used, which allowed the researcher to identify the participants’ perceived approach to offender rehabilitation, gather participants’ viewpoints, and report findings in rich detail (Speziale & Carpenter, 2007). Semi-structured interviews were conducted to gain a better understanding of the perspectives of the participants. Semi-structured interviews were deemed appropriate for this study as they provide reliable, comparable, and qualitative data as well as allowing the participants the freedom to express their views on their own terms (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006).

Participants

The participants were recruited from within this organization, with the aim of examining different perspectives and invitations were extended to frontline staff (FLS; including paid staff, volunteers, peer mentors), support staff (SS), and external stakeholders (ES). The peer mentors had personal experience of life in and after prison, while other participants did not. Potential participants received information on the study from the CEO, though the independence of the data collection process was stressed. In total 40 individuals were contacted to take part, there was a 40% participation rate. The participant rate for the FLS was 53.84%, 54.55% for the SS and 18.75% for the ES. The sample consisted of 16 participants in total, 6 males and 10 females, ranging in age from 30 to 65 (M = 48, SD = 10). The final sample included six members of the SS, seven FLS involved in the delivery of services, including paid and volunteer staff, and three ES, representing organizations that engaged with the service. In total, 32% of participants had lived experience of prison. The researchers considered the literature when conducting this research to ensure the correct terminology was used, Tran et al. (2018) advised that the principles underpinning the appropriate terminology for those with lived experience of prison, should engage people and respect their preferences, be stigma-free and accurate, prioritize individuals over their characteristics, and cultivate self-awareness. With this in mind the transcripts were reviewed to and it was determined that former offender and client were the most appropriate terms to use.

Materials

The interview guidelines were informed by a review of the literature and consideration of the objectives of the study. Six main topics of were included, specifically;

introduction—the individual’s role and how they got involved in CAP.

perceived purpose of the organization—what is the model of service CAP aims to provide and the extent to which it is implemented.

psychological constructs—looking at the psychological impact of the service, for example, wellbeing, quality of life, etc.

identifying key factors—the circumstances that contribute to the effectiveness of the CAP.

identifying barriers—identifying the perceived barriers or limiting factors of CAP.

conclusion—allowing participants the opportunity to make additional comments.

For each topic, a list of questions was formulated to guide the conversation, with questions structured using different language styles to accommodate the wide variety of participants partaking in this study. For example, how is CAP implemented vs how does CAP carry out its services.

Procedure

The research was reviewed and approved by the University College Dublin Taught Masters Research Ethics Committee (SPsy-TMREC). The participants were invited to express their interest in taking part, with those who did receiving an information sheet and a consent form. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 11 of the participants, while 5 were interviewed by phone. Interviews were conducted at a convenient time and location. Interviews ranged from 12 to 45 minutes (mean = 33.6, SD = 8.12; only four interviews were under 30 minutes) and key factors in the length of interviews was the participants’ ability to reflect on the work of the organization. A digital dictaphone was used to record all interviews and the interviews were then transcribed by the lead researcher. Finally, they were checked against the tapes for accuracy by the same researcher prior to analysis.

Data Analysis

The data were analyzed using thematic analysis, which is an independent and reliable approach to qualitative analysis (Vaismoradi et al., 2013), providing a method of “identifying, analysing and reporting themes or patterns within data” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 79). No formal qualitative data analysis package was used, though coding was recorded in Microsoft Word. An inductive technique was used when conducting this research as new themes were formed, based on the interpretation of the data. No previous research was explicitly used to inform the coding of the data (e.g., deductive coding). In addition, while the first author had engaged with the existing literature and may have been influenced by this material, the research supervisor (corresponding author) had a background in service evaluation more generally and had not engaged with the literature, which served to support a data-driven analysis process. Data analysis firstly entailed the researcher becoming familiar with the data. Subsequently, the researcher developed codes that reflected aspects of the data that were interesting or related to the research objectives, as described by Braun and Clarke (2006). Once the entire dataset was coded, the codes were then used to form candidate themes, again reflecting the objectives of the study. The research supervisor also coded and formulated candidate themes for half of the transcripts. These candidate themes were then compared in order to add to the credibility of the results. While no formal inter-rater reliability calculation was completed, nor consensus coding used, the role of the supervisor was to encourage and support reflection by the researcher in the analysis of the data. Based on the discussions between the researchers, the final themes were developed. At this stage of the analysis, the researcher mapped the final themes across the three groups of participants to identify further patterns and contrasting themes relating to the aims of the research, before a final period of reflection and discussion with the supervisor.

Ethical Considerations

As the topic and some members of the target population might be considered potentially vulnerable, ethical approval and Garda Vetting were obtained. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the participants were informed that they could withdraw at any time. No incentives were offered for participation and there were no consequences for not participating. They also provided consent for the interviews to be audio-recorded and all data collected was anonymized after transcription.

Results

The themes identified from the analysis of the data addressed two questions, to what extent is a strengths-based approach employed and promoted in CAP and what potential does CAP have to impact on the lives of clients in a positive and meaningful way. As well as identifying common themes across the participant groups, the researcher also identified a series of contrasting themes. The contrasting themes represented models other than a strengths-based approach that may have been discussed as well as any perceived lack of outcomes among clients, thus challenging the focus of the present study. The findings are presented in two parts, representing the research questions.

Perceived Model of Service

A variety of themes were present when considering the perceived model of service. Themes identified as reflecting a strengths-based model were Encouragement, Values in Action, Dignity and Respect and Key Principles in Action. The contrasting themes identified from the analysis were The Bridge, No In-Depth Knowledge and Division of Delivery.

Encouragement

Encouragement was a theme represented by the three groups of participants. This theme was used to capture concepts such as empowerment, acceptance and personal growth. Participants commented on the aim to provide clients with “the tools and confidence to move forward with their lives” (ES3). There was an understanding that this service was to be a stepping-stone for clients to “bounce off and go on to their own lives” (FLS5). The participants described how staff encouraged growth in their clients by helping them to expand their life skills, their communication skills and their emotional regulation, as highlighted by one participant stating, “it’s about learning self-skills, learning how to speak with people” (FLS6).

Participants referred to acceptance from two different perspectives, they spoke of how the organization itself encouraged society to be more accepting of former offenders by allowing them to be “active citizens” (ES3). Focusing specifically on the model or approach used the participants stressed the importance of “giving them a place they can come and be themselves and feel comfortable” (SS6). This approach is in line with the solution-focused intervention discussed by Bolton et al. (2016). They indicated that emotional regulation, personal growth, improving relationships, and improving communication were useful and important goals in the process of change that takes place during in offender rehabilitation treatment (Bolton et al., 2016).

Values in action

FLS and ES considered the values of staff as they discussed the approach the staff take. They brought to light the fact that “they are all very able to take the neutral stance, to not pre-judge or anything” (FLS2) when working with clients. The two sets of participants also commented on the aim of the service to be accessible to all that needed it, when they needed it. The concept of accessibility was considered through emphasis on the “drop in” (ES2) element of the service as well as the open relationship between clients and staff. One participant articulated how clients “really appreciated that they knew that they could link in with [name of service] as much as possible” (ES2).

The FLS particularly drew on the fact that the values employed “never wear off” (FLS2). Although Values in Action was not found as a theme by the SS, one participant in this group also expressed the idea that the approach has not wavered over time by stating “I’ve worked in services before where people become quite cynical, you know, talking about clients, service users, I have yet to see that here” (SS2). Gavrilovici and Dronic (2019) highlighted the importance of the approach of professionals as they concluded that they can facilitate or hinder offender rehabilitation.

Dignity and respect

Dignity and Respect was represented as a key feature of the work by the ES. This theme portrayed concepts aimed at increasing the clients’ self-worth and self-esteem. One participant speculated that peers in employment must have an increased level of self-worth from being invited back into prisons to give classes.

“The fact that the [Name of other organisation] officers would invite in former prisoners who are out and who are now employed by [the service] to connect in with prisoners prior to release I think that’s a really positive step forward in giving the men themselves . . . affirming their sense of self-worth.” (ES2).

The ES reflected on times they were involved in events and they spoke of how the organization “recognises everybody” and “offered clients awards for completing programmes” (ES1). Spencer and Jones-Walker (2004) supported the idea that the development of cognitive skills, which produce a sense of efficacy and help develop a sense of personal identity, should be provided during prisoner re-entry programs

Key principles in action

Key Principles in Action was a prominent theme found in discussion with the FLS. They signified the work that they do as individualistic to the clients, by emphasizing a person-centered approach. Participants commented on actions carried out to build on the skill-set of the clients, “we work from a skills-based approach so we’re not looking at the deficits that we all have, we’re looking at the strengths that people have and trying to kind of build on that” (FLS1). The FLS explicitly highlighted the fact that they employ a strengths-based model claiming that the clients “might not feel [they] are strengths to them, but we could see [them] as strengths and we build on that” (FLS3). Research suggests that offender rehabilitation programs that implement a strengths-based model can be an effective method of prisoner re-entry (Hunter et al., 2016).

The bridge

The concept of The Bridge was a prominent theme with all three sets of participants. This theme was considered a contrasting theme as the narrative surrounding it reflected the operational side of the service. This theme mirrors what the service does as opposed to how it does it. The Bridge represented the idea that clients could link in with key services such as addiction services or mental health services, using the connections and referral system available. Identified in the analysis was the fact that the main function of the service was to act as a “referral to the appropriately qualified people” (SS5) as opposed to carrying out a variety of services itself. There was a discrepancy surrounding the idea of The Bridge as some participants argued for “providing more services in house” (SS2) while others felt that “there’s other organisations out there that, that’s what they do and they are sh*t-hot at doing it, so why not send them there” (FLS4). This inconsistency was found within the three groups as well as between them. For example, one SS stated, “there are so many other services we could provide, you know, so we’re limited in that sense” (SS2) while an ES stated, “it’s too enormous a field and you could get swamped” (ES1). This debate is reflected in the literature, for example, Gavrilovici and Dronic (2019) discuss the need for public-private partnerships claiming that inter-institutional collaboration is required so that all services are available for released offenders.

No in-depth knowledge

In relation to the perceived model of service, No In-Depth Knowledge was evident among the SS and ES participants as they often spoke of the model of service, using phrases like “I would imagine” (ES3) or “I would like to think” (ES2). When asked about the model of service provided one participant responded, “I don’t know the detail, I know just from various conversations I’ve had” (SS3), while another commented “I don’t know them with in-depth detail” (ES1). This theme directly contrasts with Key Principles in Action, demonstrated by the FLS, as they spoke with more certainty when it came to their service or delivery approach. To this researcher’s knowledge, there is no other literature in this area that features a similar theme. However, this theme stresses the different nature of the roles held by participants.

Division of delivery

Division of Delivery was identified by the FLS and the SS. This theme was identified in the analysis as a contrasting theme as it spoke to the operational side of the organization as opposed to the inspirational side. The theme Division of Delivery implies that the model of service being employed is not always in line with the ethos of the service but rather with the policies and procedures in place from funding organizations. The two sets of participants made a very clear distinction around the “structured and unstructured” (FLS4) element of the work being done. One individual captured this disparity by stating that “it’s main purpose isn’t what it mainly does” (SS5). The SS and FLS also outlined the different approaches involved, as some interventions are voluntary while others are mandatory by the state.

“The [name of programme] . . . it seems that a lot of the people get very good service the clients, you know, get really good support from [service]. The [name of programme] because there is a coercive, not a coercive nature . . . there’s a reward nature to it you know you get out early if you sign up for [service] well, who is going to say no to that and as a result there’s not necessarily. . . some of the people just say yeah, whatever, just get me out of here.” (SS2)

There was a strong sense that the voluntary aspect to this service was more in keeping with the culture of the service, as participants stated that the clients are “made come in and I struggle with that” (FLS4) and that the mandatory aspect can often “hold them back” (FLS6). The mandatory or probation element to rehabilitation was identified as an “ordeal” (FLS5). One participant stated that having “to go to the [police] station six days a week, that would hold them back from getting education or getting a job. . .that is holding people back a lot” (FLS6). Lipsey and Cullen (2007) highlighted similar ideas as the ones expressed above as they carried out a meta-analysis which suggested that sanctions and supervisions may increase recidivism and criminal behavior.

Perceived Impact on Clients

Participants were asked to discuss what impact they perceived the service to have on the lives of the clients. The participants indicated that the clients’ lives are impacted in a variety of ways. Themes found under perceived impact were Personal Progress, Breaking the Cycle, Cherished Communication, and Peers. The contrasting themes that were identified were Perception of Positive Impact, Out of Our Hands, and No In-Depth Knowledge.

Personal progress

The Personal Progress of the clients was specified as a perceived impact by all groups of participants. This referred to the clients’ growth as individuals, and participants suggested that they advanced in employment or education as well as evolving emotionally. It was suggested that clients evolved emotionally from engaging in rehabilitation. Participants suggested that clients became less angry, more trusting and that they have an increase sense of self-worth and self-confidence. One participant depicted this change by reflecting on a time when a client initially came into the service and comparing that moment to when he finished.

“When they came in first they were, like, really in bad form, very niggly and people were a little bit, like, how is this going to go? . . . the person today finished, completely different behaviour approach. . .because this person. . . they’ve got what we call their light is shining much brighter.” (FLS1)

Many clients moved forward in their lives by entering employment while others returned to education. For example, one participant stated that “we have 6 people going to college this year that weren’t last year” (FLS4). Research into offender rehabilitation suggests that interventions that positively impact on an individual’s personal progress by helping them gain the knowledge, skills, resources, and opportunities necessary for them to achieve their goals in life will aid community reintegration (Ward & Fortune, 2013).

Breaking the cycle

Breaking the Cycle was a theme found by all three participant groups. Participants spoke of how clients broke or worked to break the cycle of criminality and imprisonment while engaging with the service. One participant commented on a client stating, “he has been out of prison for the last 5 years” (FLS7) while another claimed, “there is absolutely no doubt that there is a large number of people who would be in jail today if it hadn’t been for [the service]” (SS1). Many participants also commented on the reduced rate of recidivism among individuals associated with the organization, highlighting that it was “lower than the national average” (SS1). Participants referred to clients leaving prison as the “revolving door” (FLS4), implying that many offenders return to prison shortly after release. However, there was a sense that clients availing of this rehabilitation service “managed to stay out of prison as a result of those supports” (ES2). When researching this area, success is considered as avoiding incarceration. Whilst this is an important issue, it is felt that this is insufficient as the sole measure of effectiveness of re-entry programs (Petersilia, 2004).

Cherished communication

Cherished Communication was evident across all three groups of participants. The data indicated that the clients’ communication with the service had impacted them in two ways. Firstly, it made them feel they are not alone on this “isolating journey” (SS2) and allowed them to share the load in relation to any issues they had.

“Just the friendship, I think a lot of men in prison are very lonely. . . and I know lots of men who feel they have no family supports and they have they’ve sort of prevented them from committing suicide that they’ve had somebody to go to and sit with, yeah.” (ES2)

Secondly, it allowed them to become more educated and informed on a wide variety of issues, most of which participants referred to as “the bureaucratic essentials” (FLS2).

“You still need people who would tell you, like, you need to fill out this paper work, you need to fill it out like this, you need to drop it off here or there because without. . .you can’t really get back into anything.” (FLS2)

Hancock et al. (2018) found that clearly defined and strong communication pathways facilitated an individual’s re-entry into the community. They outlined the value in continuity of contact over an extended period of time and establishing a long-term relationship with prisoners.

Peers

Peers were considered a measure of impact by the SS and the FLS. Many of the FLS were former offenders employed in the peer mentoring program. One employee stated, “I am a service user and my life is completely different” (FLS4). The staff employed as peer mentors are considered evidence of the positive outcome one can have from engaging in the service. “Most effected in a positive way. . . are the peers who have ended up working in [the service]” (SS6). Research suggests that peer support improves the personal development of those providing it. Foster (2011) suggests that some of the benefits of providing peer support include self-confidence, self-esteem, personal growth, improved communication skills, greater empathy, and the respect of prison staff.

Perception of positive of impact

The participants all gave a sense that the clients were positively impacted by this service. It was suggested that the impact was “certainly positive” (FLS2). One participant claimed that the impact for clients was “enormous” (ES3), while another said it had a “huge impact” (FLS5). This theme was considered a contrasting theme as it highlights that the impact of the service was regarded as positive. However, when probed further, the data indicated that more numbers are needed to determine the exact impact and there was little evidence to support these claims. The short-term outcomes, although perceived to be positive, were not reported or recorded in any statistics and therefore there was very little to support this perception of a positive impact (“we haven’t nailed down the numbers anywhere” [SS2]). This concept was reflected by an individual who stated, “we just have to get a bit of structure on it and start putting down the outcomes” (FLS4) and a SS who acknowledged the lack of statistics in this area by saying “we need to do some work in determining how do you measure impact” (SS5). The perception of a positive impact was found in relation to long-term outcomes as many participants speculated on the impact for clients in the long-term. The data indicated that they didn’t “have enough evidence to answer that” (ES1) and that follow up procedures were fickle, with more evidence being required. This is a common finding in research as impact tends to be measured solely by recidivism rates (Visher & Travis, 2003) and impacts in other areas of life appear unmeasured or unrecorded.

Out of our hands

The theme Out of Our Hands, was represented by the FLS, this theme looked at any perceived lack of outcome and it captured the idea that many of the proposed lack of outcomes participants expressed were often due to the role of the larger system, that is, “a wider society, government issue” (ES3). One perceived limitation, experienced by clients, was the available housing. Participants expressed their desire to “provide accommodation for people” (FLS3), however, there was a consensus that this was not possible and therefore out of their hands.

“I don’t think they could be doing much more. . .with the shortage of the housing and everything that’s just such a huge bad impact on everything it’s just hard to be helping people with other things when they can’t get themselves accommodation.” (FLS2)

Preparation for release was another element that appeared to hinder client’s outcomes. This included the setting up of social services and other supports for prisoners prior to release. One participant commented on how prisoners are released without “enough things put in place before leaving prison” (FLS7), implying that this negatively impacts on the client’s rehabilitation experience. She followed this with “it isn’t in our control” (FLS7). Gavrilovici and Dronic (2019) also found that the situation in which an individual is released can have a negative impact on reintegration, they stated that elements related to the contextual reality of the released person can make the transition to community life more difficult.

No in-depth knowledge

One theme that was apparent for both the SS and ES in relation the perceived lack of outcomes was “No In-Depth Knowledge.” This theme, however, was not considered as being a testament to the organization’s ability to impact any and all areas of the clients’ lives but rather highlighted the fact that the SS and ES were too far removed from the organization to know of any short-comings personally. For example, one participant stated, “we’d be a bit distant from that” (ES3) and another responded, “I don’t honestly know” (SS6). To this researcher’s knowledge, there is no other literature in this area presenting with a similar theme. However, this theme highlights that this sample represents a group of diverse stakeholders and the opinions of those stakeholders.

Discussion

This study set out to explore the delivery of services in a non-profit, community-based organization, and has highlighted several themes in relation to the perceived model of service provided and the perceived impact on clients’ lives. The results have several implications for future research and some of the themes found complement the existing research. The first research question aimed to determine the perceived model of service promoted and consider to what extent it employs a strengths-based approach. It is suggested that the themes Encouragement, Values in Action, Dignity and Respect, and Key Principles in Action reflect a strengths-based approach. These themes reflect the promotion of community integration by promoting positive traits, human strengths, productivity, future-mindedness, wellbeing, and optimal functioning. The themes outlined above demonstrate the movement toward a strengths-based approach that incorporates a multi-dimensional model to community re-integration.

The second research question explored, from participants perspectives, the potential of the service to impact on the lives of the clients in a positive and meaningful way. The Personal Progress of clients was the theme most related to increasing wellbeing and quality of life. This theme looked at employment and evolving emotionally. Research indicates that the two can often go hand in hand. For example, Samele et al. (2009) state that offender employment can positively impact on mental health, while Waddell and Burton (2006) suggest that employment can lead to better health, improved quality of life and wellbeing and promote recovery from mental illness. Therefore, the inclusion of employment programs in offender rehabilitation is strongly recommended. Breaking the Cycle, although a major part of offender rehabilitation, provides limited insight into how people return to the community after imprisonment and their quality of life. Therefore, when conducting future research, it is recommended that this theme be considered in conjunction with a variety of other aspects as it is insufficient as the sole measure of effectiveness when it comes to re-entry programs (Petersilia, 2004). The Peers employed in offender rehabilitation were classified by participants as a sign of positive impact, as many of them started as clients themselves. Research indicates that the use of peer mentoring programs increases the wellbeing of clients, the peers and the other supporting staff (Repper et al., 2013). This study suggests that offender rehabilitation programs that are perceived to positively impact on a client’s life, in areas such as those outlined above, can also positively impact on a client’s psychological states such as wellbeing and quality of life.

Contrasting themes were also found when analyzing the data. These were themes that did not reflect a strengths-based approach or represented a perceived lack of outcomes for clients. There were some conflicted feelings from participants regarding The Bridge aspect of the service and extended research or a follow up study is required to determine what would provide better outcomes for clients a “link in” service such as the one outlined by some participants in the results or an all-in-one approach advocated by some of the participants. The theme Perceived Positive Impact highlighted that the impact of offender rehabilitation on clients was not grounded in evidence but instead was based on participants feelings. The need for more research and statistics in the field of offender rehabilitation has been made very apparent by many studies (Petersilia, 2007). Future research in this area needs to move away from exclusively recording recidivism rates and carry out multiple assessments. Most of the perceived lack of outcomes found in the participant narratives was considered out of the hands of the rehabilitation service. The participants discussed society issues and policy elements that impacted the clients’ experiences and outcome of rehabilitation. The participants’ narratives also indicated that there was a Division of Delivery in terms of the model of approach used in this service. Like many social institutions, offender rehabilitation is widely shaped and influenced by the social and political agenda (Livingston, 2018). The majority of themes found in this study reflect a paradigm shift toward the positive psychology approach toward offender rehabilitation highlighted by Wormith et al. (2007) and Seligman et al. (2004), as they reflect a strengths-based approach. However, the themes Division of Delivery and Out of Our Hands imply that a shift is still required in the social and political forces that influence offender rehabilitation.

This study has limitations to acknowledge when considering the results. The sample represents the views of stakeholders from one rehabilitation service in Ireland, who self-selected to take part. It is possible that the local context or unique features of this sample may impact the applicability of these results. Although a qualitative approach allowed for a more in-depth study, lacking in much previous research, a sample of 16 is small and further research is required to explore this field in more detail. Despite these limitations, there are also many strengths to this study. Several methods were used to ensure the credibility of the analytic process, such as creating a qualitative code book with code lists and having half of the data analyzed by the researcher and the corresponding author and then compared to increase credibility. The sample in this study, although small, consists of a wide range of individuals operating in this organization in many different contexts. The use of semi-structured interviews gave them freedom to express their views on their own terms and allowed for different and additional insights to be gathered. Semi-structured interviews can provide reliable, comparable qualitative data (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006). The findings from this study may inform future studies on key stakeholders’ perspectives of the rehabilitation models and the perceived impact that offender rehabilitation may have on the lives of clients. It is important to note that such perspectives are vital in order to gain insight into the models of service being provided and their impact (Barnao et al., 2015; Robertson et al., 2020) as well as to generate a much needed and different discussion than the one that generally dictates current policies and practice. Studies like this are pivotal in the move away from the focus on recidivism and toward improving the quality of life of offenders.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Suzanne Guerin

References

Barnao

Ward

Casey

(2015). Looking beyond the illness: Forensic service users’ perceptions of rehabilitation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(6), 1025–1045.

Bolier

Haverman

Westerhof

G. J.

Riper

Smit

Bohlmeijer

(2013). Positive psychology interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Public Health, 13, 119.

Bolton

K. W.

Lehmann

Jordan

Frank

Moore

(2016). Self-determined goals in a solution-focused batterer intervention program: Application for building client strengths and solutions. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 26(6), 541–548.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Care After Prison. (2018). “GET HELP.” http://careafterprison.ie

Cohen

Crabtree

(2006). Qualitative research guidelines project. http://www.qualres.org/HomeSemi-3629.html

Elliott

D. S.

Hagan

MacCord

(1998). Youth violence: Children at risk. American Sociological Association.

Foster

(2011). Peer support in prison health care. An investigation into the listening scheme in one adult male prison. University of Greenwich.

Gavrilovici

Dronic

(2019). How criminal justice professionals perceive the reintegration process of minors and young adults in detention and under criminal proceedings. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 25(2), 155–157.

10.

Gendreau

(1996). Offender rehabilitation: What we know and what needs to be done. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23(1), 144–161.

11.

Hancock

Smith-Merry

Mckenzie

(2018). Facilitating people living with severe and persistent mental illness to transition from prison to community: A qualitative exploration of staff experiences. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 12(1), 45.

12.

Hunter

B. A.

Lanza

A. S.

Lawlor

Dyson

Gordon

D. M.

(2016). A strengths-based approach to prisoner reentry: The fresh start prisoner reentry program. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60(11), 1298–1314.

13.

Irish Prison Service. (2013). Irish prison service recidivism study 2013. www.irishprisons.ie/images/pdf/recidivismstudyss2

14.

Irish Prison Service. (2017). Annual report 2017. https://www.irishprisons.ie/information-centre/publications/annual-reports/

15.

Izzo

R. L.

Ross

R. R.

(1990). Meta-analysis of rehabilitation programs for juvenile delinquents: A brief report. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 134–142.

16.

Lipsey

M. W.

Cullen

F. T.

(2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 297–320.

17.

Livingston

J. D.

(2018). What does success look like in the forensic mental health system? Perspectives of service users and service providers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(1), 208–228.

18.

Petersilia

(2004). What works in prisoner re-entry? Federal Probation, 68, 4–8.

19.

Petersilia

(2007). Employ behavioral contracting for “earned discharge” parole. Criminology & Public Policy, 6, 807–814.

20.

Redondo

Martínez-Catena

Andrés-Pueyo

(2012). Therapeutic effects of a cognitive-behavioural treatment with juvenile offenders. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 4(2), 159–178.

21.

Repper

Aldridge

Gilfoyle

Gillard

Perkins

Rennison

(2013). Peer support workers: Theory and practice. Centre for Mental Health.

22.

Robertson

Barnao

Ward

Birgden

Casey

Guardagno

(2020). Clinicians’ perspectives of forensic rehabilitation. Psychiatry Psychology and Law, 27(1), 138–154.

23.

Ross

R. R.

Fabiano

E. A.

(1985). Time to think: A cognitive model of delinquency prevention and offender rehabilitation. Institute of Social Sciences and Arts Incorporated.

24.

Samele

Keil

Thomas

(2009). Securing employment for offenders with mental health problems (pp. 1–12). The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health.

25.

Seligman

M. E. P.

Linley

P. A.

Joseph

(2004). Positive psychology in practice. John Wiley.

26.

Shuker

Newton

(2008). Treatment outcome following intervention in a prison-based therapeutic community: A study of the relationship between reduction in criminogenic risk and improved psychological well-being. The British Journal of Forensic Practice, 10(3), 33–44.

27.

Spencer

M. B.

Jones-Walker

(2004). Interventions and services offered to former juvenile offenders reentering their communities: An analysis of program effectiveness. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2(1), 88–97.

28.

Speziale

H. J. S.

Carpenter

D. R.

(2007). Action research method. In H. J. Streubert & D. R. Carpenter (Eds.), Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the humanistic imperative (4th ed., pp. 327–348). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

29.

Tran

N. T.

Baggio

Dawson

O’Moore Williams

Bedell

Simon

Scholten

Getaz

Wolff

(2018). Words matter: A call for humanizing and respectful language to describe people who experience incarceration. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 18(1), 1–6.

30.

Vaismoradi

Turunen

Bondas

(2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing and Health Sciences, 15(3), 398–405.

31.

Visher

C. A.

Travis

(2003). Transitions from prison to community: Understanding individual pathways. Annual Review of Sociology, 29(1), 89–113.

32.

Waddell

Burton

A. K.

(2006). Is work good for your health and well-being? The Stationery Office.

33.

Walmsley

(2016). World prison population list (11th ed.). www.prisonstudies.org/research-publications

34.

Ward

Fortune

C. A.

(2013). The good lives model: Aligning risk reduction with promoting offenders’ personal goals. European Journal of Probation, 5(2), 29–46.

35.

Ward

Fox

K. J.

Garber

(2014). Restorative justice, offender rehabilitation and desistance. Restorative Justice, 2(1), 24–42.

36.

Ward

Maruna

(2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the risk assessment paradigm. Routledge.

37.

Ward

Stewart

C. A.

(2003). The treatment of sex offenders: Risk management and good lives. Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 34(4), 353–360.

38.

World Health Organisation. (2014). Global status report on violence prevention 2014. Author.

39.

Wormith

J. S.

Althouse

Simpson

Reitzel

L. R.

Fagan

T. J.

Morgan

R. D.

(2007). The rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders: The current landscape and some future directions for correctional psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(7), 879–892.

40.

Yukhnenko

Blackwood

Fazel

(2020). Risk factors for recidivism in individuals receiving community sentences: A systematic review and meta-analysis. CNS Spectrums, 25(2), 252–263.