Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This quantitative study assessed the efficacy of a community-based rehabilitation program implemented by RISe Foundation Malta, designed to facilitate the reintegration of incarcerated individuals within the last 12 months before release. The intervention, grounded in the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model and the Good Lives Model (GLM), aimed to mitigate recidivism by addressing dynamic risk factors associated with criminality. A retrospective analysis of 40 archived case files of program completers was conducted, extracting relevant data from reports to evaluate pre- and post-intervention changes. The data were analyzed using McNemar’s test in SPSS. Results revealed a significant reduction in the presence of dynamic risk factors—such as issues related to social and psychological needs—following program completion. These findings provide empirical support for the application of the RNR and GLM models in community-based rehabilitation, demonstrating their potential to effectively reduce the propensity for reoffending.

Plain language summary

What Helps Prevent Reoffending in Malta? A Study of a Community-Based Program

This study looked at the effectiveness of a rehabilitation program run by the RISe Foundation Malta, aimed at helping people who were about to be released from prison reintegrate into the community. The program focused on reducing the factors that are linked to criminal behavior. It was based on two well-known models: the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model and the Good Lives Model. The researchers reviewed 40 case files of people who completed the program and compared their situation before and after participation. The results showed a significant decrease in the risk factors for reoffending, suggesting that the program helped reduce the likelihood of these individuals committing crimes again. This supports the use of these models in rehabilitation programs to help prevent recidivism.

Keywords

therapeutic community offender rehabilitation community-based program prisoner re-entry offender treatment recidivism

Background

A person’s re-entry from incarceration to community life presents significant challenges and barriers that compromise desistance. Reintegration efforts are often hindered by a range of complex factors, including stigma, lack of employment opportunities, fractured family relationships, unstable housing, and unresolved mental health or substance use issues. These challenges are exacerbated by the psychological adaptations individuals make to survive prison environments, which can disrupt their functionality and prospects upon release (Haney, 1997, 2001, 2019). Effective rehabilitation and community reintegration programs are therefore critical to bridging the gap between incarceration and successful community living. Drawing on international best practices, contemporary rehabilitation models emphasize structured environments, individualized care, and the strengthening of social bonds as key factors for reducing recidivism (D. A. Andrews & Bonta, 2010, 2024; Petersilia, 2003; Sampson & Laub, 2003).

Recidivism is defined as an offender’s return to prison after release (National Institute of Justice, n.d). In an article published in 2018 by Malta Today (Borg, 2018), the recidivism rate in Malta was reported at 66%. In another article published in 2021 by Times of Malta, the rate of recidivism was stated to be around 70% (Chetcuti, 2021). According to a more recent study, 86.2% of inmates were identified as repeat offenders (Psaila et al., 2024) This implies that the majority of offenders released from prison tend to re-offend, primarily involving property, violent, and drug-related offenses. These figures, coupled with Malta’s relatively high incarceration rate (Eurostat, 2021) suggest a need for better restorative justice practices.

Prisoner Re-entry and Rehabilitation

People who live a criminal lifestyle or even first-time offenders need specific interventions to stop committing crimes and become more conventional members of society. Aside from criminogenic risk factors and barriers faced during reintegration, every individual goes through several adaptations to survive within the prison environment, referred to as the psychological pains of imprisonment (Haney, 1997, 2001, 2019). Hence, a transition to a halfway house within the community before their release is recommended to facilitate the reintegration of incarcerated offenders (Petersilia, 2003) and unlearning such adaptations. According to Holmes and Rahe’s Life Stress Inventory (1967), imprisonment or any detention in any institution was found to be the fourth most stressful life event. The nature of the prison institutions, referred to as ‘total institutions’ by Goffman (1961) might generate psychological pains and barriers that inhibit one’s functionality within the community and pose a significant risk for re-offending. To add to this, it is important to mention the concept of prisonization (Clemmer, 1940), which refers to the process by which individuals serving long incarceration sentences adopt and internalize the cultural norms, values, and lifestyle of the prison environment. This adaptation transforms individuals to conform to the prison system rather than the conventional social system.

Transitioning to a community-based halfway house before release is widely recognized as a crucial strategy for facilitating this process (Visher & Travis, 2018). Therefore, in-depth rehabilitation and reintegration programs are essential for promoting conventional living and addressing the unique challenges faced by individuals transitioning from incarceration to community life. A narrative synthesis conducted by Mathlin et al. (2022) highlights the importance of combining RNR-based approaches with structured treatment, family contact, mental health and substance misuse support, and stable housing. They also emphasize the critical role of aftercare services in reducing recidivism. These findings align closely with the current study’s focus on holistic, community-based rehabilitation and reintegration. Furthermore, Fazel et al. (2022) reviewed 29 prison-based psychological interventions and found only modest overall reductions in recidivism. However, therapeutic community models combined with community aftercare showed stronger effects, emphasizing the importance of continued support after release.

Local Community-Based Rehabilitation and Reintegration Program

The current study evaluated the effectiveness of a community-based rehabilitation and reintegration program offered by the Reintegration In Society (RISe) Foundation Malta. RISe Foundation Malta is a non-governmental organization that delivers a program, similar to a halfway house, designed for incarcerated individuals in their final 12 to 15 months before release, whether due to sentence completion or parole. All incarcerated individuals are considered for the program. The exclusion criteria are limited to individuals who do not test negative for drugs and those who are subject to deportation. Established in 2013 and operational since 2016, the RISe Foundation focuses on facilitating successful reintegration into society upon program completion. The RISe Foundation’s program utilizes the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model (Andrews et al., 1990) to tailor interventions based on criminogenic risk and needs, aiming to reduce the risk of recidivism. It incorporates the Good Lives Model (GLM) (Ward et al., 2007) to motivate participants by focusing on personal aspirations and positive life goals. Finally, it applies restorative justice principles to promote accountability for the crime committed and victim empathy.

A structured, psychologically informed environment (PIE; Worthington & Hannaby, 2018) forms the program’s building structure, emphasizing emotional safety and promoting the development of positive behavioral change. Each participant receives an individualized care plan, created and managed by a multidisciplinary team of trained professionals. The intervention, implemented within the structured, therapeutic environment, directly targets established criminogenic risks and needs, which are deemed as significant risk factors when inadequately addressed (D. A. Andrews & Bonta, 2010, 2024). This comprehensive intervention encompasses the following key components:

Structured Daily Activities: These activities foster self-discipline and responsibility, essential for successful reintegration.

Education: Participants engage in approximately 300 to 350 hr of group sessions, covering a broad curriculum focusing on social skills, communication skills, financial skills, family skills, critical thinking, and pre-employment training.

Individualized Therapeutic Intervention: Participants receive tailored one-to-one therapy from a multidisciplinary team, including psychologists, social workers, and key workers, focusing on personal development and addressing specific criminogenic needs.

Employment Training: The program provides skills and guidance to facilitate employment acquisition and retention.

Family Support: The program offers interventions and support to improve familial relationships and facilitate family reintegration.

Community Integration Activities: Participants engage in conventional activities within the community to practice newly acquired skills and foster social integration.

Housing: The program assists participants in securing stable and fitting housing.

Collectively, these components create a comprehensive intervention designed to address the multifaceted needs of individuals transitioning from incarceration to community life. This program is unique in its community-based approach, delivering interventions within the community rather than a prison setting. Figure 1 provides a concise visual representation of the program’s structure, illustrating the distinct phases of the intervention.

Figure 1.

The figure above illustrates the sequential phases of the program’s intervention.

Rationale for Current Study

Considering the literature linked to desistance, several factors related to the termination of criminal careers can be highlighted and used as interventions. Specifically, the life-course perspective by Sampson and Laub (2003), which highlights the role of significant life events, such as having stable employment, marriage, or becoming a parent, as crucial ‘turning points’ that can disrupt criminal careers. This perspective is linked with the strengthening of social bonds, a core principle in Social Control Theory (Hirschi, 1969), and is recognized as a key protective factor against recidivism. The RISe Foundation’s program actively fosters the development of such bonds through family support and community access. Finally, the GLM (Ward & Gannon, 2018), which emphasizes the development of prosocial life goals and the means to achieve them, is integrated into the program’s therapeutic approach, empowering participants to construct meaningful and crime-free futures. This encourages participant motivation because the focus is not solely on risk. By addressing these key desistance factors, the RISe Foundation’s program demonstrates a commitment to facilitating long-term behavioral change and successful reintegration.

This study targets the gap between incarceration and release by evaluating the effectiveness of a specific community-based rehabilitation and reintegration program designed for incarcerated individuals nearing their release. By focusing on a structured, multidisciplinary intervention rooted in evidence-based practices and delivered within the community rather than the prison environment, this research aims to contribute valuable empirical data on the program’s impact on key factors related to desistance, reintegration, and recidivism reduction. In doing so, it responds to a critical need for evidence-informed strategies to improve restorative justice practices in Malta (Restorative Justice Act, 2012)

Aims

This research study aimed to assess the efficacy of the RISe Foundation’s program in reducing the risk of recidivism. Central to this objective was investigating whether the program effectively lowers the risk factors associated with reoffending, with results compared to established ‘what works’ literature. The study hypothesized a significant reduction in dynamic risk factors following program completion, reflecting the program’s targeted intervention. These dynamic risk factors, adapted from the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R; D. A. Andrews & Bonta, 1995), encompass employment and educational attainment, family and relationships, substance abuse, social needs, and psychological coping skills.

The program’s design is explicitly grounded in the RNR Model, whereby dynamic risk factors are the primary targets for intervention. Specifically, the program implements a risk-focused approach, adapting intervention intensity to individual risk levels; a need-oriented approach, prioritizing criminogenic needs that directly contribute to reoffending; and a responsivity-driven approach, tailoring interventions to individual learning styles and characteristics. The intervention itself comprises structured activities within a PIE (Worthington & Hannaby, 2018), individual and group sessions with a multi-disciplinary team, and gradual community engagement. These components focus on personal development, interpersonal relationships, housing stability, educational advancement, and employment acquisition. Furthermore, the program integrates principles from the GLM to enhance participant motivation by fostering aspirations and personal goal attainment. Aligning with restorative justice philosophy, the program stresses addressing offender needs, promoting accountability, and victim empathy.

The evaluated program, offered by the RISe Foundation Malta, functions as a halfway house, facilitating inmates’ transition during the final phase of their sentence. The program’s core targets include the dynamic criminogenic risk factors, the psychological adaptations of incarceration, and the societal barriers encountered during reintegration.

Method

Participants

This study utilized 40 archived case files provided by the RISe Foundation, specifically focusing on individuals who successfully completed the rehabilitation program by March 2021. This selection criterion was crucial because the research design necessitated a comparative analysis of dynamic risk factors at program entry and completion. Consequently, the 10 individuals who did not complete the program could not be assessed for this pre- and post-intervention comparison, as their data were incomplete. Case files of individuals who did not complete the program, due to either voluntary withdrawal or program rule violations, were excluded from the analysis. This exclusion was necessitated by the lack of comprehensive data required to accurately assess the reduction of the dynamic risk factors at program completion. Therefore, listwise deletion was employed to remove these cases. This methodological choice, while ensuring precise comparative results, inherently reduced the study’s statistical power, particularly given the limited sample size. Moreover, the focus on program completers may introduce selection bias, highlighting the importance of future research that includes an analysis of non-completers.

The timeframe for this study encompassed all program completers from its initial operation in June 2016 to March 2021. Before the main study, a pilot study was conducted using five case files from those who did not complete the program. The objectives of this pilot study were to familiarize the researchers with the data collection process, identify potential flaws in the variable checklist, and refine the nominal variables. Subsequently, the data collection process was optimized, and the 40 case files of program completers were analyzed using the refined variable checklist.

Design

A variable checklist was designed to collect data: The variable checklist included the dynamic risk factors associated with re-offending. The researchers assessed the risk factors before the program (pre-test) and the risk factors after the program (post-test) for each case file. The key risk factors were identified from the literature review, particularly those measured by the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R; D. A. Andrews & Bonta, 1995).

The LSI-R is a 54-item tool that measures the risk of re-offending, looking at both static and dynamic risk factors (D. A. Andrews & Bonta, 1995). This tool was selected as a primary source for informing the researchers about specific dynamic risk factors due to its robust empirical foundation and demonstrated predictive validity for recidivism across diverse offender populations. Given its comprehensive assessment of criminogenic needs and its alignment with the RNR model, the researchers determined its suitability for extracting key dynamic risk factors.

Finally, these extracted dynamic risk factors were utilized to construct the variable checklist, enabling a comparative analysis of pre- and post-intervention changes. The checklist focused solely on dynamic risk factors, as these are the targets of the intervention. This available in Appendix 1. The checklist items were scored using a dichotomous rating system of 1 = present/yes and 0 = absent/no. After that, the nominal variables were entered into a statistical software.

Procedures

The IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyze the data. The main hypothesis (H1) asserts that the dynamic risk factors of offenders participating in the program have significantly decreased after intervention. This is important because it may positively impact the rate of recidivism. The null hypothesis states that the presence of dynamic risk factors of those participating in the rehabilitation program did not significantly decrease. To evaluate this hypothesis, McNemar’s test was carried out, utilizing the variable checklist to conduct pre- and post-intervention assessments. For this study, a non-parametric test was used due to skewness and kurtosis in the sample and the relatively small sample size, as it is derived from a specific population.

Data for the checklist were extracted from case files, which contained psychological evaluations, social work assessments, and general care plan reports. For each of the 40 case files, the checklist was completed twice: once to assess dynamic risk factors before intervention, and again to evaluate dynamic risk factors post-intervention. The statistical significance of changes between the two checklists was determined using McNemar’s Test. This study compared the pre- and post-intervention data to evaluate whether the program’s intervention resulted in significant changes within the same population.

Results

The dynamic risk factors were categorized into five distinct categories, and the statistical significance of the improvement of each factor was assessed, with a hypothesis of significant reductions. For each category, a table was generated to present the pre- and post-intervention scores for individual risk factors, along with their corresponding significance levels and percentage improvements. These results were obtained from the crosstabulations generated by the McNemar test on SPSS.

Education and Employment

The researchers examined risk factors related to education and employment. About 16 (n) participants had previously struggled to engage in school but excelled in the program, particularly in the educational component. In contrast, two individuals who had no trouble engaging in school struggled during the program, while four remained unchanged. A McNemar test revealed a statistically significant difference, χ²(1) = 10.89, p = .001, with 40% of participants showing improvement. In terms of attitude toward education, 12 (n) participants who previously had a negative attitude toward education changed their minds throughout the program. This change was also statistically significant, χ²(1) = 9.00, p = .002, reflecting a 30% improvement in attitudes toward education.

In terms of financial independence, the majority of the sample had relied on social assistance before the program. Following the intervention, 24 participants no longer depended on benefits, resulting in a substantial 60% decrease in reliance on social assistance. A McNemar test confirmed this reduction was statistically significant, χ²(1) = 21.33, p < .001.

Employment outcomes also improved. A 95% change was observed between pre- and post-intervention measures for employment, χ²(1) = 38.05, p < .001. Additionally, 27 participants who previously had struggled to find and maintain employment, following the program, 67.5% of them demonstrated improvement. This difference was found to be statistically significant, χ²(1) = 27.00, p < .001. These results are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Results from McNemar’s Test—Education and Employment.

No.	Variable (risk factor)	Count (n)	% Of improvement	Level of significance (p = .05)
1	Pre—Difficulty engaging in school	20	40	.001
1	Post—Difficulty engaging in program	6	40	.001
2	Pre—Negative attitude toward schooling	13	30	.002
2	Post—Negative attitude toward education	2	30	.002
3	Pre—Reliance on social assistance	24	60	.000
3	Post—Reliance on social assistance	0	60	.000
4	Pre—Unemployment	38	95	.000
4	Post—Unemployment	0	95	.000
5	Pre—Difficulty in finding and keeping a job	27	67.5	.000
5	Post—Difficulty in finding and keeping a job	0	67.5	.000

Note. This table displays the results for the analysis carried out when comparing dynamic risk factors related to education and employment before and after the intervention to assess program effectiveness.

Family and Relationships

In this category, as presented in Table 2, the researchers included criminogenic risk factors involving the offender’s current family composition and relationships outside the family, which are considered criminogenic needs if not addressed.

Table 2.

Results from McNemar’s Test—Family and Relationships.

No.	Variable (Risk factor)	Count (n)	% Of improvement	Level of significance (p = .05)
1	Pre—Dissatisfaction with current relationship	12	27.5	.004
1	Post—Dissatisfaction with current relationship	2	27.5	.004
2	Pre—Difficulty relating to own children	11	22.5	.003
2	Post—Difficulty relating to own children	2	22.5	.003
3	Pre—Current evidence of domestic violence	7	15	.059 (n.s)
3	Post—Current evidence of domestic violence	2	15	.059 (n.s)
4	Pre—Having criminogenic peers	26	57.5	.000
4	Post—Having criminogenic peers	3	57.5	.000
5	Pre—Socially detached	16	30	.008
5	Post—Socially detached	6	30	.008
6	Pre—Trust issues	29	55	.000
6	Post—Trust issues	7	55	.000

Note. This table displays the results for the analysis carried out when comparing dynamic risk factors related to family and relationships before and after the intervention to assess program effectiveness.

In terms of current relationship satisfaction, 11 participants reported better satisfaction with their partner after completing the program. One participant remained dissatisfied, while another reported becoming dissatisfied following the intervention. This reflects a 27.5% overall improvement, which was statistically significant, χ²(1) = 8.33, p = .004.

Regarding the participants’ relationships with their children, nine participants reported improved relationships and no current difficulties, while two participants faced further difficulties after intervention. This represents a 22.5% improvement, which was statistically significant, χ²(1) = 8.99, p = .003.

When examining current evidence of domestic violence, six participants showed improvement, one remained unchanged, and one reported a worsening situation. Although this reflects a 15% improvement, it did not reach statistical significance, χ²(1) = 3.56, p = .059. Based on this finding, the authors recommended placing greater focus on addressing issues related to domestic violence in future interventions of the program.

In terms of the risk of having criminogenic peers, the majority of those who had criminogenic peers (n = 23) improved their social network and had fewer criminogenic peers after the intervention of the program, while three (n) remained unchanged. This resulted in a 57.7% overall improvement, which was statistically significant, χ²(1) = 16.00, p = .000.

In terms of social attachment, the majority of those who were socially detached before the program (n = 12) appeared to improve their social network and were no longer socially detached by the end of the program. Four (n) remained unchanged, while two (n) faced new social network challenges after the program. Following intervention, there was a 30% improvement, which was statistically significant, χ²(1) = 7.00, p = .008.

Finally, 22 (n) people who previously had trust issues improved their trust in others after completing the program, while seven (n) people remained unchanged. This recorded a 55% improvement and a statistical significance of χ²(1) = 17.36, p = .001.

Substance Abuse

The researchers examined dynamic risk factors related to attitudes and cognitions toward substance abuse in this category. About 21 (n) people had previously engaged in socially inappropriate activities such as hanging out with criminogenic people and engaging in drug use. Following the intervention of the program, 18 (n) individuals improved by having no socially inappropriate desired activities, while three (n) individuals remained unchanged. The intervention demonstrated a 45% improvement, which was statistically significant, χ²(1) = 18.00, p = .001.

In terms of attitudes toward drug use, 12 (n) people changed their positive attitude to a negative, one (n) remained unchanged, and two (n) changed their negative attitude to positive. The change in attitude resulted in a 30% improvement that was statistically significant, χ²(1) = 7.00, p = .008.

In relation to having a perceived risk for relapse, 17 (n) participants improved their risk for relapse. In contrast, four (n) remained unchanged, and one (n) resulted in having a perceived risk for relapse after not presenting any initial risk. This indicated a 42.5% improvement that was deemed statistically significant, χ²(1) = 16.00, p = .001. Table 3 provides a summary of these results.

Table 3.

Results from McNemar’s Test—Substance Abuse.

No.	Variable (Risk factor)	Count (n)	% Of improvement	Level of significance (p = .05)
1	Pre—Socially inappropriate activities	21	45	.000
1	Post—Socially inappropriate activities	3	45	.000
2	Pre—Positive attitude toward drug use	13	30	.008
2	Post—Positive attitude toward drug use	3	30	.008
3	Pre—Perceived risk for relapse	21	42.5	0.000
3	Post—Perceived risk for relapse	5	42.5	0.000

Note. This table displays the results for the analysis carried out when comparing dynamic risk factors related to substance abuse before and after in the intervention to assess program effectiveness.

Social Needs

Homelessness and financial difficulties were identified as the two most pressing social needs that can lead to reoffending. These findings of this category are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4.

Results from McNemar’s Test—Social Needs.

No.	Variable (Risk factor)	Count (n)	% Of improvement	Level of significance (p = .05)
1	Pre—Homeless/poor housing	21	52.5	.000
1	Post—Homeless/poor housing	0	52.5	.000
2	Pre—Financial difficulties	20	45	.000
2	Post—Financial difficulties	4	45	.000

Note. This table displays the results for the analysis carried out when comparing dynamic risk factors related to social needs before and after in the intervention to assess program effectiveness.

In terms of housing, the majority of the sample (n = 21) did not have a home or had substandard housing. Following the program, everyone was placed in suitable housing. There was an overall 52.5% improvement yielding statistical significance χ²(1) = 19.09, p = .001.

Concerning financial risks, 20 (n) individuals reported having financial difficulties; 18 (n) of them improved their financial stability after the intervention, while two (n) remained unchanged and two (n) experienced a decline in their financial situation. This decrease in financial risk resulted in a 45% improvement, which was statistically significant, χ²(1) = 16.00, p = .001.

Psychological Coping Skills

This category, detailed in Table 5, includes various personality and emotional aspects requiring intervention. These aspects can be deemed criminogenic if unaddressed.

Table 5.

Results from McNemar’s Test—Psychological Coping Skills.

No.	Variable (Risk factor)	Count (n)	% Of improvement	Level of significance (p = .05)
1	Pre—Low self-esteem	22	52.5	.000
1	Post—Low self-esteem	2	52.5	.000
2	Pre—Depressive episodes	21	50	.000
2	Post—Depressive episodes	1	50	.000
3	Pre—Emotional dysregulation	32	65	.000
3	Post—Emotional dysregulation	6	65	.000
4	Pre—Stress/coping/emotional collapse	34	80	.000
4	Post—Stress/coping/emotional collapse	2	80	.000

Note. This table displays the results for the analysis carried out when comparing dynamic risk factors related to psychological coping skills before and after the intervention to assess program effectiveness.

With respect to self-esteem, the majority of participants (n = 21) improved their self-esteem as a result of the program’s intervention, while one (n) remained unchanged and one (n) worsened. After the intervention, a 52.5% improvement was noted that was statistically significant, χ²(1) = 19.09, p < .001.

In terms of depressive episodes, the majority of people who had previously experienced depressive episodes (n = 20) did not experience such episodes after the program intervention, while one (n) remained unchanged. A 50% improvement was noted, reaching statistical significance, χ²(1) = 19.00, p < .001.

In terms of emotional dysregulation, such as problems with anger management, the majority of the sample was emotionally dysregulated.The majority of those who struggled with emotion regulation (n = 26) improved throughout the program, while six (n) remained unchanged. After intervention, there was a 65% overall improvement, which was statistically significant, χ²(1) = 20.57, p < .001.

Finally, the majority of participants (n = 34) had previously experienced an emotional collapse when dealing with stressful and emotional events. Through the program, 32 (n) people improved their coping skills, while two (n) people remained unchanged, noting an 80% betterment in coping skills, which was statistically significant χ²(1) = 28.12, p < .001.

Discussion

This study aimed to determine whether the community-based program’s intervention offered by the RISe Foundation Malta effectively reduced offenders’ dynamic risk factors. The program’s intervention operates through the lens of the RNR Model, focusing on addressing criminogenic needs and matching the level of service to the intensity of risk of the individual. Notably, the program also incorporates principles from the GLM to address participants’ life goals and aspirations, motivating the individual to engage in rehabilitation. Restorative justice principles are essential to promote accountability and responsibility. The intervention sought to motivate individuals toward a conventional lifestyle and address reintegration barriers.

Dynamic risk factors were assessed before and after the intervention using the McNemar test. Results indicated a significant improvement across nearly all assessed risk factors, grouped into five categories. Specifically, all risk factors demonstrated significant positive changes following the program, except for ‘current evidence of domestic violence’, which pertains to attitudes toward partners, gender roles, and the potential for perpetrator traits. This outcome suggests the program’s success in reducing criminogenic risks and promoting positive change, while highlighting an area requiring enhancement of the intervention.

Education and Employment

Post-program, significant improvements were observed across all education and employment-related risk factors. The program’s educational component focuses on developing a broad spectrum of skills vital for employment and successful reintegration. This successfully facilitated offenders’ engagement in educational programs and fostered a positive attitude toward having an education. Participants receive approximately 300 to 350 hr of group sessions, covering areas such as social and communication skills, family skills, financial skills, life skills, critical thinking skills, cognitive-behavior-therapy, and vocational training. Education and employment-related risk factors are associated with recidivism (Farrington et al., 2016; Glueck & Glueck, 1950). Contemporary research highlights the ongoing challenges of prisoner reentry, particularly concerning employment, stemming from educational deficits and criminal records (Petersilia, 2003; Roman & Travis, 2020; Taxman et al., 2003).

Beyond educational support, the program’s emphasis on securing and maintaining employment reduced the reliance on social assistance post-release, a factor consistently linked to lower rates of recidivism (Sampson & Laub, 2003; Rogers, 1981). The program also significantly improved participants’ interpersonal relationships at work, demonstrating positive changes in behavior and relational skills within the program community.

The program’s ultimate success in this area was gaining full-time employment and sustaining it. This aligns with the GLM, which posits employment as a primary good (Ward & Gannon, 2006). This achievement can also serve as a secondary good, facilitating access to other primary goods like social connection, agency, and well-being (Ward et al., 2006). By enabling individuals to attain primary goods through legitimate, socially accepted means, the program reduces the likelihood of reoffending (Maruna & Immarigeon, 2011).

Family and Relationships

In this category, nearly all dynamic risk factors showed significant improvement following the program’s intervention. However, the result concerning the risk factor ‘current evidence of domestic violence’ did not reach statistical significance. This area presents unique intervention challenges due to its complex, multi-dimensional nature, potentially requiring more intensive and holistic approaches.

Some offenders remained close with their family members throughout imprisonment; however, the majority of the participants presented in the program with strained or broken family relationships, mainly due to their incarceration and previous criminal involvement. Poor family relationships are considered a significant risk factor for recidivism (Glueck & Glueck, 1950; Loper & Tewksbury, 2017). Lacking support within the community is also one of the most significant barriers to prisoner re-entry (Petersilia, 2003; Visher & Travis, 2018). These factors are also central to social control theory, which emphasizes the role of informal social controls in successful reintegration (Hirschi, 1969; Taxman, 2004; Taxman et al., 2015)

The artificial environment of prison, as described by Haney (2019), the close monitoring of the guards and the process of ‘prisonisation’ (Clemmer, 1990), result in relational distance (Haney, 2001) and other relational problems. After the program’s intervention, most individuals who previously had difficulty within their current marital relationship, with their children, and with their parents have significantly improved. The program’s interventions, designed to address the complex dynamics of family relationships, fostered significant improvement by creating opportunities for participants and their families to engage in structured and therapeutic interactions. Frequent family meetings, facilitated by professionals, provide a safe space for open communication, conflict resolution, and the exploration of past relational problems. Unsupervised meaningful visits within the community, as opposed to monitored visits within a prison setting, are carefully planned to encourage positive interactions in natural settings, allowing participants to practice newly acquired skills and families to rebuild their relationships and trust. Family contact was also identified as an important factor in the narrative synthesis conducted by Mathlin et al. (2022). Developing meaningful family relationships can be a turning point for many individuals (Sampson & Laub, 2003). Further interventions include group sessions, grounded in evidence-based family skills training, that equip participants with practical tools for effective parenting, partner communication, and conflict management. These interventions collectively aim to dismantle negative relational cycles, promote empathy and understanding, and ultimately strengthen family bonds, thereby contributing to the participant’s successful reintegration and reduced risk of recidivism. However, the persistent issue of domestic violence suggests a need for more specific intervention targeting this area.

In the realm of extra-familial relationships, most participants demonstrated improved trust and social connectedness, and a reduction in associating with criminogenic peers. This addresses the psychological pains of incarceration, such as mistrust and social withdrawal, which can hinder interpersonal relationship development (Haney, 2019). The program’s success in fostering conventional relationships aligns with social control theory (Hirschi, 1969) and the GLM (Ward, 2010), which emphasizes the importance of friendships and community values. However, some individuals persisted in maintaining criminogenic peer relationships and had trust issues. Research consistently links criminal associates to reoffending (D. A. Andrews & Bonta, 2010, 2024). These individuals may struggle with forming new relationships or have identity issues that perpetuate criminal associations, potentially leading to social detachment post-program.

Substance Abuse

Substance abuse is a well-established criminogenic risk, significantly associated with an elevated risk of recidivism (D. A. Andrews & Bonta, 2024). Notably, the program’s intervention yielded significant improvements across all assessed substance abuse-related risk factors. However, it’s crucial to acknowledge that a substantial proportion of the sample presented with a history of substance abuse. Moreover, supplementary demographic analyses revealed that program non-completers and recidivists consistently exhibited a history of substance abuse and subsequent relapse. All participants receive group intervention focusing on substance abuse prevention and management, with individualized support provided to those identified with a risk for relapse. The program’s comprehensive skills-based approach targets several risk factors associated with relapse.

Aligned with the GLM (Ward et al., 2006), the program facilitates the development of functional strategies for achieving primary goods, thereby reducing maladaptive behaviors like substance abuse. Furthermore, integrating principles from self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), the program addresses fundamental psychological needs, fostering intrinsic motivation and autonomy, which are crucial for sustained behavioral change.

Social Needs

Housing and financial stability, both critical determinants of successful reintegration (Mathlin et al., 2022) and societal functioning, were identified as key criminogenic needs within this category, aligning with the RNR model. These needs, if unmet, pose a significant risk of recidivism and are primary targets for intervention (D. A. Andrews & Bonta, 2010, 2024). Notably, the program’s intervention yielded significant improvements in both housing and financial stability among participants. Housing instability is widely recognized as a major barrier to successful prisoner reentry (Visher & Travis, 2018). A substantial portion of the sample entered the program with a history of homelessness or inadequate housing, compounded by financial difficulties that hindered their ability to establish a conventional lifestyle post-release.

The program successfully facilitated housing placement for all participants upon completion, and the majority achieved financial stability through employment or family support. The program’s comprehensive approach includes the development of essential skills, such as budgeting, financial literacy, employment skills, social skills, and independent living skills, which are crucial for addressing potential setbacks and maintaining long-term housing stability. These skills are integrated throughout the program’s rehabilitative component and individual therapeutic interventions.

Psychological Coping Skills

This category encompasses intrapersonal risk factors, including maladaptive defenses stemming from psychological distress due to unmet needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Individuals may be indirectly driven toward criminal activity when they experience adverse consequences while pursuing primary goods (Ward, 2010), particularly if they lack adequate coping mechanisms (Fortune et al., 2012). These risk factors, such as low self-esteem, mental health issues, emotional dysregulation, and poor coping skills, are crucial to address for fostering a positive self-concept and adaptive functioning (Laws & Ward, 2011).

Notably, the program’s intervention yielded significant improvements across all assessed risk factors within this category, which were prevalent among the sample. The psychological pains of incarceration, including the internalization of a ‘criminal’ identity (Durkheim, 1952), significantly impact self-esteem. The program’s focus on enhancing self-esteem and self-concept aims to counteract the effects of ‘prisonization’ (Haney, 2019).

Furthermore, a substantial portion of participants reported experiencing depressive episodes before the program. The intervention facilitated significant improvements in mental well-being, with only one individual remaining susceptible to depressive episodes. This suggests that addressing the barriers to attaining primary goods, as outlined by Ward and Gannon (2006), is crucial for mitigating psychological distress.

High hostility and anger management problems are also strongly associated with recidivism (D. A. Andrews & Bonta, 2010, 2024). The program’s specialized interventions, including anger management training, cognitive skills development, social skills training, and cognitive behavioral therapy, significantly improved emotional regulation among participants.

Stress management and coping skills were also a primary focus of the program’s intervention within the residential home. A significant majority of participants reported difficulties managing stressful life events and poor problem-solving skills, both of which are strongly linked to recidivism (D. A. Andrews & Bonta, 2010, 2024). These internal obstacles can impede the attainment of primary goods, such as inner peace, happiness, and meaningful relationships (Ward & Maruna, 2007). The program’s emphasis on developing cognitive abilities and healthy coping mechanisms aims to facilitate desistance from crime (Fortune et al., 2012).

Limitations

Having a small population sample poses a limitation for this study. Several attempts to counteract this limitation were considered, such as choosing the appropriate statistical test. The results of this study cannot be generalized to other populations, and further research is required. The study overall indicated that the aim of the program, to reduce risk factors associated with reoffending, is being reached. However, it cannot conclude whether reducing these factors reduces recidivism rates. Further research observing survival rates in the community would be warranted.

A limitation that might play a role is the fact that non-completers were not considered in the study. Since this study aimed to determine successful elements in prisoner rehabilitation and reintegration, non-completers were not considered. Studying this further might shed light on further ‘what works’ literature. On a final note, to minimize potential bias arising from one researcher’s direct affiliation with the program, an external researcher was involved in the study, and an objective methodology utilizing case file analysis was employed.

Implications

This study sought to advocate for a change in societal beliefs and mentality, by highlighting the efficacy of rehabilitation and the importance of careful prisoner reentry. This issue is particularly important in our country due to the high rates of recidivism and the prevailing punitive approach to criminal justice. The authors intend to stimulate societal discourse, fostering greater openness toward rehabilitation and emphasizing the crucial role of community reintegration. Furthermore, this research aspires to influence policymakers to prioritize restorative justice principles over punitive penal philosophies, thereby addressing both the offender’s criminogenic needs and society’s need for healing (Bazemore & Walgrave, 2010; Braithwaite, 2016). Consequently, this study underscores society’s significant role in the successful rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders, particularly in the context of contemporary reentry challenges (Visher & Travis, 2018).

Recidivism is a problematic phenomenon worldwide (Langan & Levin, 2002), requiring general societal efforts to attempt to reduce the risk of reoffending. Investing in effective rehabilitation and community reintegration programs yields long-term benefits, including reduced economic burdens and a decrease in victimization and crime. Petersilia (2003) and Visher and Travis (2018) both claim that it is ultimately in the interest of public safety to carry out the process of prison re-entry as carefully as possible. The study’s demonstration of the efficacy of this program in reducing recidivism-related risk factors offers a promising outlook for the future of correctional practices. Practitioners in the field can benefit from this study because it confirms that a holistic approach to rehabilitation, a structured yet positive environment, gradual reintegration, and the integration of the RNR and GLM models yield positive results. This outcome is in line with the research carried out by Mathlin et al. (2022). Although there is no single formula for success, incorporating these factors appears to effectively reduce the risk of reoffending.

Implications for future research include both longitudinal and comparative studies. Longitudinal research could investigate the long-term impacts of this rehabilitation and reintegration program, with a focus on outcomes after 3 years post-release, as this is commonly considered the benchmark for measuring recidivism. Existing research suggests that the majority of reoffending occurs within the first 3 years following release (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2018). Such studies would provide further evidence to support the effectiveness of this community-based rehabilitation programs over time. In addition, comparative studies could evaluate the differences between community-based and prison-based programs, helping to confirm (or refute) the theory that community-based approaches yield better reintegration outcomes and lower recidivism rates than traditional prison-based rehabilitation.

Conclusions

It is more important to ask which programs work rather than whether rehabilitation works because the success of rehabilitation appears to be dependent on several individual and contextual factors (Ross & Hilborn, 2008). Indeed, evidence-based programs have demonstrated significant reductions in reoffending (D. A. Andrews & Bonta, 2010, 2024; Mathlin et al., 2022). Effective rehabilitation strategies often incorporate therapeutic communities with comprehensive aftercare services based on cognitive-behavioral approaches (Lipsey et al., 2019; Petersilia, 2003), and approaches that address psychosocial needs (Taxman, 2004; Taxman et al., 2015), emphasizing learning within relevant contexts (Porporino, 2010). Furthermore, integrating a strengths-based perspective, alongside a risk-management approach, improves psychological well-being and fosters motivation to change (Ward & Gannon, 2018; Ward & Maruna, 2007).

This study provides compelling evidence that the RISe Foundation’s evidence-based and community-based program significantly reduces the risks associated with recidivism. Beyond evaluating the program’s effectiveness in reducing recidivism risk and highlighting areas for improvement, the authors aim to promote social change and challenge the prevailing punitive mentality within the Maltese population, which often discounts rehabilitation despite the country’s demonstrably high recidivism rates.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ijo-10.1177_0306624X251386088 – Supplemental material for What Works in Reducing the Risk of Recidivism in the Maltese Context? An Evaluation of a Reintegrative Community-Based Rehabilitation Program

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ijo-10.1177_0306624X251386088 for What Works in Reducing the Risk of Recidivism in the Maltese Context? An Evaluation of a Reintegrative Community-Based Rehabilitation Program by Yanika Tabone and Kevin Sammut Henwood in International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the Rise Foundation Malta for granting access to their archives and for their cooperation with the research protocol.

ORCID iD

Yanika Tabone

Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the Faculty Research Committee of the Faculty for Social Wellbeing at the University of Malta.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from the RISe Foundation Malta. All participants’ personal information was kept confidential throughout the research study.

Consent for Publication

The Foundation had previously obtained consent from participants, as part of its program admission, to allow the use of archived information for potential research purposes. The Foundation granted the authors access to this information and provided consent for publication. No identifying information is included in the published material.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Yanika Tabone is an employee of the RISe Foundation Malta. Kevin Sammut Henwood declares no potential conflicts of interest.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the results of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Andrews

Bonta

(2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., LexisNexis Group.

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(1995). The level of service inventory–revised. Multi-Health Systems.

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(2024). The psychology of criminal conduct (8th ed.). Routledge.

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

Hoge

R. D.

(1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 19–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854890017001004

Bazemore

S. G.

Walgrave

(2010). Restorative juvenile justice: Repairing the harm of youth crime. Lynne Rienner Publisher.

Borg

(2018). Crime, poverty, recidivism and restorative justice. Malta Today.

Braithwaite

(2016). Crime, shame and reintegration (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2018). 2018 Update on prisoner recidivism: A 9-year follow-up period (2005–2014) (NCJ 250975). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/2018-update-prisoner-recidivism-9-year-follow-period-2005-2014

Chetcuti

(2021). When it comes to prison, the statistics are very telling. Times of Malta. https://www.timesofmalta.com/article/when-it-comes-to-prison-the-statistics-are-very-telling-kristina.902900

10.

Clemmer

(1940). The prison community. Ronald Press.

11.

Clemmer

(1990). The prison community (2nd ed.). Macmillan.

12.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68

13.

Durkheim

. (1952). Suicide: A study in sociology. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

14.

Eurostat. (2021). EU prisons in 2020: Populations and overcrowding. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20230512-2

15.

Farrington

D. P.

Coid

J. W.

Harnett

Jolliffe

Sutherland

(2016). Offending from childhood to late middle age: Recent results from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Springer.

16.

Fazel

Yoon

I. A.

Hayes

A. J.

(2022). A systematic review and meta-analysis of mental health interventions for prisoners. Lancet Psychiatry, 9(9), 734–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00232-5

17.

Fortune

C. A.

Ward

Willis

G. M.

(2012). The rehabilitation of offenders: reducing risk and promoting better lives. Psychiatry Psychology and Law, 19(5), 646–661. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2011.615809

18.

Glueck

(1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. Harvard University Press.

19.

Goffman

(1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Penguin Books.

20.

Haney

(1997). Psychology and the limits to prison pain: Confronting the coming crisis in Eighth Amendment law. Psychology Public Policy and Law, 3(4), 499–588. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8971.3.4.499

21.

Haney

(2001). The psychological impact of incarceration: Implications for post-prison adjustment. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/75001/Haney.pdf

22.

Haney

(2019). Criminality in context: The psychological foundations of criminal justice reform. American Psychological Association.

23.

Hirschi

(1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.

24.

Langan

P. A.

Levin

D. J.

(2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994 (Bureau of Justice Statistics special report).

25.

Laws

D. R.

Ward

(2011). Desistance from sexual offending: Alternatives to throwing away the keys. Guilford Press.

26.

Lipsey

M. W.

(2019). Rehabilitation programs for adult offenders: A meta-analysis in support of guidelines for effective practice (Final report, Grant No. 2014-IJ-CX-0021). National Institute of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/252504.pdf

27.

Loper

A. B.

Tewksbury

(2017). Family relationships and recidivism: A review of the research. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 56(1–4), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2017.1287958

28.

Maruna

Immarigeon

(2011). After crime and punishment: Pathways to offender reintegration. Routledge.

29.

Mathlin

Freestone

Jones

(2022). Factors associated with successful reintegration for male offenders: A systematic narrative review with implicit causal model. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 20(2), 541–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-022-09547-5

30.

National Institute of Justice. (n.d). Recidivism. National Institute of Justice. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism

31.

Petersilia

(2003). When prisoners come home parole and prisoner re-entry. Oxford University Press.

32.

Porporino

F. J.

(2010). Bringing sense and sensitivity to corrections: From programs to “fix” offenders to services to support desistance. In Brayford

Cowe

Deering

(Eds.), What else works? Creative work with offenders (pp. 45–62). Willan Publishing.

33.

Psaila

Dave

Sammut Henwood

(2024). High psychopathy among Maltese inmates, high rate of repeat offenders. Times of Malta. https://www.timesofmalta.com/article/high-psychopathy-among-maltese-inmates-high-rate-recidivists.1112985

34.

Restorative Justice Act. (2012, 2014). Chapter 516. Malta. https://legislation.mt/eli/cap/516/eng/pdf

35.

Rogers

(1981). Factors related to recidivism among adult probationers in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/77806NCJRS.pdf

36.

Roman

J. K.

Travis

(2020). Prisoner reentry: A review of the research and policy landscape. Annual Review of Criminology, 3, 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041416

37.

Ross

R. R.

Hilborn

(2008). Rehabilitating rehabilitation: Neurocriminology for treatment of antisocial behaviour. Cognitive Centre of Canada.

38.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

(2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Harvard University Press.

39.

Taxman

F. S.

(2004). The offender and re-entry: Supporting active participation in reintegration. Federal Probation: A Journal of Correctional Philosophy and Practice, 68(2), 49–57. http://www.uscourts.gov

40.

Taxman

F. S.

Young

Byrne

J. M.

(2003). Transforming offender reentry into public safety: Lessons from OJP'S reentry partnership initiative. Justice Research and Policy, 5(2), 101–128. https://doi.org/10.3818/jrp.5.2.2003.101

41.

Taxman

F. S.

Young

D. W.

Byrne

J. M.

(2015). Examining the impacts of evidence- based practices in community corrections: A meta-analysis. National Institute of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248555.pdf

42.

Visher

C. A.

Travis

(2018). Life on the outside: Returning home after incarceration. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 30(3), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2018.30.3.163

43.

Ward

(2010). The good lives model and offender rehabilitation: Basic concepts and general applications. Psychology Crime and Law, 16(3), 243–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160802528143

44.

Ward

Gannon

T. A.

(2006). Rehabilitation, etiology, and self-regulation: The comprehensive good lives model of treatment for sexual offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2005.06.001

45.

Ward

Gannon

T. A.

(2018). Rehabilitation, offender change and the good lives model. In Ward

Gannon

T. A.

Elbogen

A. M.

(Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of forensic neuropsychology (pp. 583–605). Wiley Blackwell.

46.

Ward

Maruna

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

47.

Ward

Melser

Yates

P. M.

(2007). Reconstructing the risk–need–responsivity model: A theoretical elaboration and evaluation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 208–228.

48.

Ward

Vess

Collie

R. M.

Gannon

T. A.

(2006). Risk management or goods promotion: The relationship between approach and avoidance goals in treatment for sex offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(4), 378–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2006.01.001

49.

Worthington

Hannaby

(2018). Psychologically informed environments. The British Psychological Society: Division of Forensic Psychology, 127, 8–22.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB