Getting SMART, SMART Recovery© programs and reoffending
| Pages | 3-16 |
| Published date | 08 February 2016 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-02-2015-0018 |
| Date | 08 February 2016 |
| Author | Chris Blatch,Kevin O'Sullivan,Jordan J Delaney,Daniel Rathbone |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Forensic practice |
Invited paper
Getting SMART, SMART Recovery©
programs and reoffending
Chris Blatch, Kevin O’Sullivan, Jordan J. Delaney and Daniel Rathbone
Chris Blatch is Senior
Cordinator Policy and Projects
at Corrective Services New
South Wales, NSW
Department of Justice,
Sydney, Australia.
Kevin O’Sullivan is Clinical
Associate at School of
Psychology, University of
New South Wales,
Kensington, Australia.
Jordan J. Delaney is
Psychologist at Actevate
Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia.
Daniel Rathbone is based at
School of Psychology,
University of New South Wales,
Kensington, Australia.
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to determine reconviction outcomes for 2,882 male and female
offenders with significant alcohol and other drug (AOD) criminogenic needs, serving custodial sentences
in New South Wales, between 2007 and 2011, who participated in the Getting SMART and/or the SMART
Recovery® programs.
Design/methodology/approach –A quasi-experimentalresearch design utilized data from 2,343 offenders
attending Getting SMART; 233 attending SMART Recovery© and 306 attending both programs, compared
to a propensity score-matched control group of 2,882 offenders. Cox and Poisson regression techniques
determined survival times to first reconviction and rates of reconvictions, adjusting for time at risk.
Findings –Getting SMART participation was significantly associated with improved odds of time to first
reconviction by 8 percent and to first violent reconviction by 13 percent, compared to controls.
Participants attending both programs (Getting SMART and SMART Recovery©), had significantly
lower reconviction rate ratios for both general (21 percent) and violent (42 percent) crime, relative to
controls. Getting SMART attendance was associated with significant reductions in reconviction rates of
19 percent, and the reduction for SMART Recovery© attendance (alone)was 15 percent, the latter figure
being non-significant. In all, 20 hours in either SMART program (ten sessions) was required to detect
a significant therapeutic effect.
Practical implications –Criminal justice jurisdictions could implement this two SMART program
intervention model, knowing a therapeutic effect is more likely if Getting SMART (12 sessions of
cognitive-restructuring and motivation) is followed by SMART Recovery© for ongoing AOD therapeutic
maintenance and behavioral change consolidation. SMART Recovery©, a not-for-profit proprietary program,
is widely available internationally.
Originality/value –Getting SMART and SMART Recovery© have not previously been rigorously evaluated.
This innovative two-program model contributes to best practice for treating higher risk offenders with AOD
needs, suggesting achievable reductions in both violent and general reoffending.
Keywords Methodology, Propensity score matching, Interventions, Recidivism, AOD programs,
Reoffending, SMART Recovery©, Violent offending
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Problematic use of alcohol and other drugs (AOD) is associated with an increased risk of
reoffending (Andrews and Bonta, 2006). Between 2007 and 2008, 70 percent of males and
79 percent of females in custody in New South Wales (NSW) reported they had engaged in illicit
substance use in the six months prior to their incarceration; 72 percent of males and 67 percent
of females reported that at least one of their current offences was related to use of alcohol
and/or other drugs (Kevin, 2010). Corrective Services New South Wales (CSNSW) provides
evidence-based group interventions to offenders, aimed at changing behaviors and reducing
Received 13 February 2015
Revised 3 June 2015
4 June 2015
Accepted 4 June 2015
Research for this paper was
undertaken by officers of
Corrective Services NSW using
internal funding and resources.
Data for the study came from the
standing collections of Corrective
Services New South Wales and
the NSW Bureau of Crime
Statistics and Research.
Analysis and interpretation of
data were undertaken by
Corrective Services NSW with
assistance from interns of the
University of NSW’s Forensic
Psychology Master’s program.
The authors report no conflicts of
interest. The authors alone are
responsible for the content and
writing of this paper.
DOI 10.1108/JFP-02-2015-0018 VOL. 18 NO. 1 2016, pp. 3-16, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 2050-8794
j
JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PRACTICE
j
PAG E 3
To continue reading
Request your trial