The profile of people entering the ‘EQUIPS’ offender treatment programs in New South Wales’

ABSTRACT

New South Wales has the largest population of incarcerated people in Australia, with increasing levels of community supervision. Corrective Services NSW offers eligible people the EQUIPS suite of offender treatment programs, which follow the Risk-Need-Responsivity model of offender rehabilitation. Referrals to the programs are also targeted to meet the specific reoffending needs of individuals, including EQUIPS Foundation, Aggression, Addiction and Domestic Abuse. This study examined the profile of people targeted for treatment in NSW by examining demographic, sentencing and criminogenic characteristics within a cohort of 18,963 individuals allocated to attend EQUIPS programs in custody and in the community between 2015 and 2018. Most individuals allocated to EQUIPS programs (80%) had a history of criminal justice system involvement, were male, with low education and most often from major cities or inner regional areas. Around a third were Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. Less than half of those referred to EQUIPS participated in at least one treatment session and only one quarter completed the course of treatment. Recommendations for improved program delivery include: 1) more timely risk assessment and allocation to programs during individual’s sentences; and 2) enhancing equitable allocation between custodial and community settings based on individual risk and the types of programs available.

KEYWORDS:

• EQUIPS; offender treatment
• offender rehabilitation
• rehabilitation
• recidivism

Introduction

Over the past decade the national Australian average daily custodial population has increased by over 40% (from 28,711 in 2010/2011 to 41,176 in 2021/2022) (Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2023). New South Wales (NSW), the most populous Australian state, has the largest custodial jurisdiction in Australia, with approximately one-third (30.3%, 12,491 persons) of the general custodial population (Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2023). The number of people serving community corrections orders across Australia nationally is larger than the custodial population, with an average of 80,114 individuals per day serving community corrections orders in 2021–2022. The average daily number of people on Community Corrections orders in NSW has increased by 112% over the past 10 years from 16,411 in 2012–2013 to 34,788 in 2021–2022 (Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2023).

Alarmingly, 2020–2021 data shows that approximately half (53.1%) of people released from prison in NSW during the 2018–2019 period, returned to correctional services (either custody or community corrections) with a new sentence within two years. Of those who were discharged after serving orders from the Community Corrections division of Corrective Services NSW (CSNSW), 25.2% were incarcerated during the same period (Australian Productivity Commission 2021). In this context, there is a clear opportunity to engage individuals in therapeutic programs that can reduce their likelihood of reoffending post-release.

The EQUIPS suite of programs

Since its inception in January 2015, CSNSW has delivered the Explore, Question, Understand, Investigate, Practice, Succeed (EQUIPS) suite of programs, designed as their cornerstone correctional intervention for offender rehabilitation in both custodial and community settings (e.g., Howard & Lobo, 2020; Juarez & Howard, 2022; Rahman & Poynton, 2018). These programs were developed in reference to the Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model, a criminological theory which posits that offender treatment should: target higher risk individuals; consider individual offender criminogenic needs in its design; and should be delivered in a way that considers the responsivity and capacity of the individual (Bonta & Andrews, 2007). Through the RNR framework, EQUIPS aims to aid individuals in practicing strategies for processing difficult emotional events, and methods which aim to reduce their antisocial behaviour and encourage their prosocial behaviour (CSNSW, 2020).

The EQUIPS suite is grounded in a Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) framework and was developed by Offender Services and Programs staff within CSNSW with reference to existing models and academic literature on best practice in offender treatment (Juarez & Howard, 2022; Zhang et al., 2019). It is comprised of four programs: (1) EQUIPS Foundation, a non-offence-specific program which aims to introduce the individual to rehabilitative interventions, and can be presented as a standalone intervention for general offending behaviour, or as a precursor for participation in other EQUIPS programs; (2) EQUIPS Addiction offers support for participants to minimise addictive behaviours, using group processes and self-management tasks with a focus on aligning skill development to their personal experiences; (3) EQUIPS Domestic Abuse encourages individuals to accept responsibility and increase accountability for their intimate partner and domestic violence and abuse offence-related behaviours in order to reduce future offending; and (4) EQUIPS Aggression is focused on increasing participants’ behavioural control and their ability to manage negative life experiences. This approach focuses on the direct and peripheral causes of aggressive behaviour to minimise future aggression (CSNSW, 2020).

While programs can be delivered as a standalone intervention, individuals can be referred to multiple EQUIPS programs if they are deemed to have different needs to be addressed, and even repetitions of the same program, if it is determined that they require extended treatment dosage or maintenance of therapeutic benefit, in accordance with the identified criminogenic needs and case management pathway. In this regard, the EQUIPS suite was designed as a modular, high-volume behaviour change program for widespread use across CSNSW settings which can be incorporated into case management to deliver moderate-to-high levels of intervention dosage according to the individual’s needs. Over the measurement timeframe for the current study, EQUIPS programs were delivered to closed groups of up to 10 participants by specialist CSNSW services and programs staff, and each had five modules with four sessions of two hours each (or 40 h combined), with sessions typically conducted on a weekly basis (CSNSW, 2020). More recently the delivery of EQUIPS has expanded to include rolling groups, accelerated programs involving multiple sessions per week, and condensed short-format program versions as part of their integration into comprehensive CSNSW behaviour change initiatives such as the High Intensity Programs Units (e.g., Mahajan et al., 2021) and the Short Sentenced Intensive Programs (e.g., Ross et al., 2023).

Eligibility criteria for prospective EQUIPS participants include an elevated assessed risk of recidivism, in addition to having sufficient time on their custodial or community order to complete programs. Additional criteria apply to specific programs, such as elevated AOD-related criminogenic needs (Addiction) or having an index DV-related offence (Domestic Abuse) or non-DV related violent offence (Aggression). Implementation strategy is oriented towards widespread availability of EQUIPS programs to people who meet these criteria across different settings and locations, including but not limited to specific vulnerable cohorts. Referrals are generated through automated eligibility lists or as part of the Community Corrections case management planning process and are accompanied by individual suitability assessments. Once determined eligible and suitable, prospective participants are allocated to schedules for planned upcoming programs.

The same EQUIPS programs are delivered in two quite different environments: custodial and community-based facilities. Those partaking in EQUIPS in custody are deprived of freedom of movement through their enforced accommodation in custodial centres, whereas those undergoing EQUIPS under community supervision, either through a community supervision order or post-release supervision from custody, do not experience the same deprivation of liberty, often living in their own homes, and continuing with outside employment.

The largely different sentencing profiles of people undergoing custodial versus community sentences, will likely give rise to differences in the risk and demographic profile of participants who participate in EQUIPS in each setting. For example, those who receive community sanctions tend to have a lower risk profile than those who receive custodial sentences (Yukhnenko et al., 2019). Women also make up a higher proportion of those undertaking community sanctions in NSW than those undertaking custodial sentences in NSW, (17.6% and 6.6%, respectively). There is also higher representation of Australian Aboriginal peoples in custodial compared to community settings (27.8% versus 22.8%, respectively) (Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2023). While EQUIPS is not explicitly or preferentially targeted to particular groups in either custodial or community settings outside of the risk-based criteria mentioned above, a better understanding of the participant profile in each setting could help Corrective Services to ensure that EQUIPS delivery and content is as accessible, equitable and suitable to participant needs as possible.

The current study

The current study presents the first output in a broader commissioned collaboration between researchers at the University of Sydney and CSNSW to document and evaluate the implementation of the EQUIPS program and to understand barriers and facilitators that arose to implementation across different delivery settings.

This first paper introduces the program of work by (i) documenting the demographic characteristics of the cohort of individuals who allocated to EQUIPS programs in both community and custodial settings, and their sentencing and criminogenic needs; and (ii) presenting the number of people referred to EQUIPS who actually go on to participate in and complete these programs. This knowledge will allow for continual evaluation and refinement of the EQUIPS program design and delivery in each unique setting, and more targeted to specific offender needs (Heseltine et al., 2011).

Method

A cross-sectional study of administrative data, collected routinely by CSNSW, was conducted to determine the demographic, sentencing and criminogenic factors associated with individuals’ allocation to each of the four EQUIPS programs both in custody and in the community. This included individuals who were referred and then deemed suitable to participate and subsequently allocated to an upcoming program and attendance data for each program. Data was obtained from the CSNSW Offender Integrated Management System (OIMS) for all adults managed by CSNSW who had been referred to an EQUIPS program in custody or in the community between 2 January 2015 (the implementation of EQUIPS) and 31 December 2018. This resulted in a total of 61,459 referrals to EQUIPS programs attributed to 18,963 unique individuals. The target sample was defined by their referral to any of the EQUIPS programs in custody or in the community. Some descriptive data was derived from the Inmate Screening Questionnaire (ISQ), a survey tool administered to individuals on reception to custody, to help inform their acute adjustment and longer-term case management needs. This means the sample for these data was limited to those who had entered custody.

The nature of the archival administrative data used meant participants in this had not been asked to give, and have not provided, informed consent. However, the data used is routinely collected as part of routine CSNSW staff operations and is regularly used for reporting and analysis activities without informed consent by inmates. Additionally, the members of the research team who conducted the research (located on-site at Sydney University) received a de-identified version of the dataset and hence were unable to identify participants in order to receive consent. The research team proceeded with the research due to recognition, as per the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, that there are benefits around using secondary datasets that outweigh the lack of consent possible: ‘because research using population-wide datasets is inclusive of all members of the population in question, it promotes the core principle of justice. In addition, benefits and burdens may be spread more evenly than research based on selected participants (section 3.1.50–3.1.51). There are clear benefits in publicly sharing results of this project, ensuring that the findings are translated into improvements in services and practices associated with EQUIPS.

At the time of the data collection, CSNSW had set several eligibility criteria for individuals referred to EQUIPS programs, informed by the RNR model: They must have had a medium-to-high risk of recidivism according to the Level of Service Inventory- Revised (LSI-R) (Andrews & Bonta, 2001)¹; a current offence resulting in a period of supervision or incarceration; sufficient supervision time remaining in their total sentence or order (at least six months) to complete the program (where those with short sentences are prioritised); and cannot present with psychotic symptoms, drug or alcohol intoxication or withdrawal symptoms at the time of program delivery.

Descriptive statistics were reported for all referrals to EQUIPS programs between 2015 and 2018 to provide an outline of offender characteristics and referral throughputs and pathways.

Descriptive statistics were also reported for the number and proportion of individuals who had participated in and completed an EQUIPS program they were referred to between 2015 and 2018. Program attendance was defined as attending least one session of the program that a person was referred to. Program completion was rated by CSNSW program staff within the OIMS system. Generally, individuals were considered to have ‘completed’ an EQUIPS programs after attending 40 h of sessions (or 20 sessions of 2 h each). In EQUIPS policy, completing a program is defined as completing at least 17 of the 20 program sessions, provided that any missed sessions (maximum of 3) are not consecutive or part of the same module. Irrespective of attendance, individuals may also be withdrawn from EQUIPS programs based on therapeutic reasons; for example, in cases when their engagement or behaviour in the program indicates an absence of new learning or application of skills with specific conditions around this. In these cases of obligatory withdrawal, the participant was still considered to have ‘completed' the program. As such, the number of EQUIPS sessions that were associated with ‘completion’ ranged from 1 session to 48 sessions over the study period.

Ethical approval was obtained from CSNSW, The University of Sydney HREC (2019/730) and the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council (AH&MRC) HREC (1560/19).

Results

Of the 61,459 referrals to EQUIPS programs attributed to 18,963 unique individuals, approximately half (52.8%; n = 32,464) occurred through the custodial referral pathway. The remaining 47.2% were made through a community pathway. Almost half (47%; n = 28,863) of EQUIPS referrals across both settings were conferred into program allocations, meaning the participant referral had been processed by staff as appropriate and necessary and they had been allocated to attend their designated EQUIPS program at a particular location and date.

Demographic characteristics of individuals allocated to EQUIPS programs

Three quarters (74.8%) of individuals allocated to EQUIPS programs were between the ages of 18 and 39 (Figure 1). Most individuals allocated to EQUIPS programs were male (90.8%). The program with the highest proportion of allocations of women was Foundation (13.8%). Women were the least likely to be allocated to Domestic Abuse (0.1%). The ratio of men to women allocated to EQUIPS appeared higher in custody-based referrals (93% vs 7%) compared to community-based referrals (88.5% vs 11.5%). The proportions of women allocated to EQUIPS in community settings appeared slightly lower than the NSW average daily proportion of females undergoing community sanctions during this period (15.4%), whereas the proportion of females referred to EQUIPS in custodial settings reflects the average daily proportion of females in NSW custodial centres at that time (7.9%, Australian Productivity Commission, 2018). Most individuals allocated to EQUIPS (87.5%) had not completed year 10, suggesting consistently low levels of education. This number was very similar across referral pathways and each of the program types. Over one-quarter of individuals (28.7%) reported being in a relationship (either married or de facto) and this rate was similar across all programs and settings. However, individuals allocated to Domestic Abuse were slightly more likely to be in a relationship (31%) than those allocated to other programs (27.7%−29.2%).

Figure 1. Age at referral for all offenders allocated to EQUIPS Foundation, Domestic abuse, Addiction, Aggression or all programs (on average) between 2015 and 2018 (inclusive).

Thirty four percent of individuals allocated to EQUIPS were Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, with slight differences between the custody pathway (35.1%) compared to the community pathway (32.9%), with a similar range across program types (e.g., from 31.4% in Foundation, to 36.8% in Aggression). This was somewhat higher than the NSW average daily proportion of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander taken during the same period (24.3% in custody, 22.3% in community, Australian Productivity Commission, 2018). A small proportion (3.1%) of individuals allocated to EQUIPS programs were Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD). This rate was consistent across settings and program types.

Other demographic characteristics of allocated individuals who completed the ISQ

More individuals (61.1%) allocated to EQUIPS came from major cities prior to their offence than other geographic region types, including regional (36.4%) and remote (1.6%) locations. Individuals allocated across custodial and community settings did not appear to differ greatly in the remoteness of their geographic origin. Over one third (34.5%) of allocated individuals came from geographic areas who rated in the top two deciles of the ABS Index of Relative Disadvantage in Australia. Over half (54%) reported being homeless prior to entering custody and a quarter (23.8%) reported that they thought they would need assistance with accommodation when they left custody. Almost one-in-five (18.7%) had been in Out of Home Care during their lifetime. The majority (72.6%) self-reported no disability of any kind on entry to custody. The most common disability reported was mental health related (16.7%).

Sentencing characteristics of individuals allocated to EQUIPS programs

Half of individuals (51.2%) allocated to EQUIPS programs were in full-time custody at referral. This proportion differed significantly across programs. Allocations to Addiction were the most likely to be associated with individuals in full-time custody at referral (69.7%), followed by Aggression (68.7%), Foundation (42.9%) and Domestic Abuse (23.8%). When compared by program, more than three quarters (75.7%) of allocations to Domestic Abuse were for individuals who had a community order at referral, followed by 59.8% of allocations to Foundation, 32.8% to Addiction and 32.5% to Aggression.

Incarceration and conviction history

One-in-five allocations to EQUIPS (21.0%) were for individuals who had zero or one prior conviction during their lifetimes prior to their current index offence (i.e., the offence which attracted their current sentence and treatment). Around 40% had had 2–8 convictions, and another 21% had 8–19 offences and over 19 convictions over their lifetime, respectively. Individuals allocated to Aggression were the most likely to have fewer prior convictions prior to their index offence (24.6% had only 0–1 convictions compared to average across programs 21.0%). Those allocated to Domestic Abuse were the least likely to have 0–1 prior convictions (17.6%) and were more likely to have 2–8 prior convictions prior to their index offence (43.6% compared to average across programs 37.4%).

Individuals’ conviction history differed according to their referral pathway. As is evident in Figure 2, individuals allocated through the custodial pathway appeared to have a more extensive history of convictions than those allocated through the community pathway.

Figure 2. The percentage of all offenders who had 0–1, 2–4, 5–8, 9–18 or 19 + convictions over their lifetime prior to their EQUIPS referral. Results are stratified by referral pathway–custodial and community.

Timing of EQUIPS referral in relation to Earliest Possible Release Date (EPRD)

As illustrated in Figure 3, close to half of individuals referred under the custodial pathway were allocated to EQUIPS programs within six months to one year prior to their EPRD, as per the timeframe mandated in CSNSW policy to ensure adequate time remained to finish the program before they were eligible for parole. A further 36.1% of allocations were made for individuals whose EPRD had already passed. The remaining 16.6% of allocations to EQUIPS were made more than one year prior to their EPRD. Individuals allocated to Foundation and Domestic Abuse were much less likely to be allocated to programs prior to their EPRD (57% and 42%, respectively), than those allocated to Addiction and Aggression (both 74.1%). In contrast, individuals were more likely to be allocated to Addiction and Aggression in the time prior to EPRD and less likely to have their allocation fall after their EPRD date.

Figure 3. The percentage of offenders allocated to EQUIPS programs differentiated by the time between their Earliest Possible Release Date (EPRD) and program referral—occurring over 2 years, 1–2 years, 6–12 months or 0–6 months either prior or past their EPRD.

ANZSOC Most Serious Offence (MSO) scores

The five most serious offences were mostly similar across individuals allocated EQUIPS programs across custodial and community settings. Serious assault resulting in injury was the most common MSO for those allocated to EQUIPS programs in both custody and community settings. ‘Unlawful entry with intent/burglary’, ‘break and enter’ and ‘common assault’ also featured in the five most common MSOs in both contexts. There were also differences within the most common MSOs in the two contexts: ‘Breach of parole’ and ‘aggravated robbery’ were both within the five most common MSOs in custody whereas ‘stalking’ and ‘deal or traffic in illicit drugs’ were in the five most common MSOs in the community.

Over a third (38.3%) of all individuals allocated to EQUIPS programs had a current domestic violence offence on referral to EQUIPS. The number was highest amongst those allocated to Domestic abuse (90.9%) compared to all other programs where just over a quarter of allocated individuals had a current offence under domestic violence legislation.

Criminogenic characteristics of individuals allocated to EQUIPS programs

LSI-R risk profile

Under CSNSW policy, having an LSI-R risk score of medium or above is a necessary pre-condition to referral to an EQUIPS program, with few exceptions. Consistent with this policy, it was very rare (2.4% of cases) that an individual with a low or medium-low LSI-R score was allocated to a program. Figure 4 shows that averaged across all programs, 47.3% of allocated individuals had a medium LSI-R, followed by 28.0% with a medium-high LSI-R and 6.7% with an LSI-R score of ‘high’. Interestingly, just over 15% of individuals allocated to EQUIPS programs did not receive an LSI-R assessment within 13 months prior to referral to the program. Those allocated to Foundation were the least likely, and those allocated to Addiction were the most likely, to have not received LSI-R assessments prior to program allocation.

Figure 4. The LSI-R assessed level of criminogenic risk of offenders referred through the custodial pathway (left) or the community pathway (right). Note: These proportions do not include the 15.6% offenders (or n = 4506) who had not completed the LSI-R within 13 months of their referral to the EQUIPS program.

LSI-R subdomains

Figure 5 shows the proportion of individuals allocated to EQUIPS programs who were assessed as having the highest level of need for each of the different LSI-R subdomains (i.e., those that were assessed as having a ‘considerable need for improvement’ according to CSNSW case management policy). The subdomain with the most consistently high level of need was criminal history, although unlike the rest of the subdomains, criminal history is not understood to be a ‘dynamic risk factor’ because it reflects a person’s history and cannot change through treatment (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Bonta & Andrews, 2007). More than 80% of individuals allocated to EQUIPS had the highest level of need in regard to alcohol/drug problems and leisure and recreation, suggesting that these issues were commonly experienced amongst individuals allocated to different programs, not just those specifically targeting this behaviour, e.g., EQUIPS Addiction. The majority of allocated individuals had a high level of need in their financial domain and around 40% had needs in terms of attitude/orientation and education/employment. Less than 10% of allocated individuals had the highest level of need relating to accommodation or companions.

Figure 5. Percentage of offenders allocated to EQUIPS programs who were identified as having ‘considerable need for improvement’ within each of the LSI-R subdomains.

EQUIPS program participation and completion

Table 1 provides information on the number and proportion of individuals who participated in or completed EQUIPS programs after being referred through community and custodial pathways. Overall, only 39.2% of those referred to a program actually participated in at least one session, and one quarter (25%) completed the program.

Table 1. Number and proportion of program referrals conferred into program participations and completions across EQUIPS programs in custody and the community.

		EQUIPS Programs
		Foundations n (%)	Domestic Abuse n (%)	Addiction n (%)	Aggression n (%)	Any program n (%)
	Referral Source
Participation	Custody (n = 17,909)	2232 (38.6)	653 (36.9)	2881 (38.9)	1075 (34.6)	6,841 (38.2)
	Community (n = 21,818)	3828 (45.1)	2411 (48.4)	1691 (31.6)	808 (27.1)	8,738 (40.1)
	Total (n = 39,727)	6060 (42.9)	3064 (45.4)	4572 (35.8)	1883 (30.9)	15,579 (39.2)
Completion	Custody (n = 17,909)	1487 (26.4)	442 (25.0)	2080 (28.1)	775 (25.0)	4,784 (26.7)
	Community (n = 21,818)	2185 (25.7)	1598 (32.1)	910 (17.0)	440 (14.7)	5,133 (23.5)
	Total (n = 39,727)	3672 (26.0)	2040 (30.2)	2990 (23.4)	1215 (20.0)	9,917 (25.0)

While no statistical tests were performed, it seemed that the proportion of people who participated in or completed the referred EQUIPS programs did not differ greatly between custodial and community settings. As can be observed in Table 1, slight variations in participation and completion rates can also be noticed across different program types.

Discussion

The current paper is the first to examine the profile of people targeted for therapeutic intervention within the NSW individual population. It explored the demographic, sentencing and criminogenic profiles of those entering the CSNSW EQUIPS programs through custody and community referral pathways and explored differences in cohorts across the two settings. These findings can help by providing opportunities to refine delivery and content of EQUIPS to better target the needs of those who will receive their programs. Several findings have clear implications for policy and practice.

Overall, the profile of individuals allocated to EQUIPS was a mostly male cohort, with low education and most often from major cities or inner regional areas. Data indicates very few individuals allocated to EQUIPS were Culturally and Linguistically Diverse. Many individuals came from geographical regions associated with severe levels of relative disadvantage. Most individuals allocated to EQUIPS had histories of involvement with the criminal justice system, with two thirds having been previously incarcerated and almost 80% having more than one conviction prior to their index offence. Most allocated individuals referred through the custodial pathway had a parole period associated with their sentence.

Around a third were Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, which is substantially higher than the daily average correctional populations of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples taken during the same period: during 2016–2017 the average daily proportion was 24.3% in custody, 22.3% in community (Australian Productivity Commission, 2018). The high proportion of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples allocated to EQUIPS program is positive; with such high overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in prison it is appropriate that as a group Aboriginal people are accessing EQUIPS at a greater rate than other groups. However, the finding also suggests that EQUIPS program delivery needs to prioritise cultural awareness and adaptation to ensure suitability for this population.

Individuals allocated to EQUIPS also had substantial assessed criminogenic need. In line with CSNSW policy, it was very rare for allocated individuals to have an assessed LSI-R risk below ‘medium’. This is best practice, in line with the fundamental risk principle of the RNR model (Bonta & Andrews, 2007) and research and theorists positing that including low risk individuals in therapeutic programs with higher risk individuals can in some cases have an iatrogenic effect on their offending outcomes (Latessa & Lovins, 2010).

Results also have implications for program delivery. Across all EQUIPS programs, more individuals than not had the highest level of criminogenic need in relation to alcohol and drug use and leisure or recreation and to a slightly lesser extent, financial needs, showing the commonality of these issues overall. These findings show that other EQUIPS programs would benefit from including content about dealing with drug and alcohol problems and finding prosocial means of leisure and recreation into their curriculums to meet the criminogenic needs of their individual cohort. Financial needs were another widespread criminogenic need which could be incorporated into all program curriculums.

Additionally, while most participants who had a custodial sentence were referred to their EQUIPS program before their EPRD (when they are eligible for parole), over a third of participants were referred after their EPRD had passed. This suggests that (a) some individuals may be remaining in custody beyond a point which they could be accessing parole to complete their programs; or (b) the potential for lost opportunities to treat individuals in custody due to the lack of time remaining or the lack of availability or access issues in the community. It is also possible a small portion of these individuals could have received a referral to EQUIPS as part of their return to custody following breach of parole or that this data simply represents individuals who were not granted parole at their earliest date. Given results show there may be less allocation of parolees to EQUIPS in the community, each of these possibilities suggest that CSNSW may benefit from prioritising timely allocation of eligible individuals to EQUIPS earlier in one’s custodial sentence, to ensure individuals are given every possible opportunity to access treatment.

Concerningly, despite allocation to EQUIPS programs being contingent on criminogenic risk, approximately one-in-six allocated individuals had not received an LSI-R assessment within 13 months prior to referral to the program. To ensure appropriate allocation to EQUIPS according to the risk principle, timely, regular risk assessment is needed. Recent revisions to risk assessment as part of eligibility screening processes within CSNSW were partly intended to manage the substantial resource costs associated with administering assessments to large populations of individual offenders (Raudino et al., 2019).

As expected, there was a general trend whereby individuals allocated to EQUIPS through the community pathway tended to have a less severe risk profile than those allocated through the custodial pathway. This result raises the concern that community-based EQUIPS may be over-targeting low-risk people or under-targeting higher risk people, who could be missing out on needed treatment. CSNSW has since revised the role of risk assessment to more clearly standardise thresholds for eligibility, which may help to address this issue.

Results showed substantial discrepancies between program delivery in custodial and community settings. There were much lower levels of program allocation for Addiction and Aggression in community settings and of Domestic Abuse in custodial settings. A lack of program delivery in each setting may be leaving individuals with these criminogenic needs without treatment in each setting. Further research is needed to understand how program referrals and allocation in each setting relates to the extent of individual need in that setting. Such results may indicate program availability deficits leading to lost opportunities to treat domestic violence offenders within custodial settings.

This study also revealed that only half of individuals referred to an EQUIPS program are subsequently allocated to that program. Less than half actually participate in at least one session of the program and one quarter go on to complete the program. Our collaborative research team will next release papers in this series that identify and examine possible barriers to engagement with EQUIPS, by exploring the individual-level and operational/systems-level factors which enable or prevent people from participating in or completing EQUIPS programs. Our final piece in this program of work will extend the findings from Rahman and Poynton (2018) to look at the association between reduction in recidivism and participation dosage across all EQUIPS programs.

Conclusion

This study was the first in a series exploring the processes and outcomes of the EQUIPS offender treatment programs delivered in NSW custodial and community settings to reduce reoffending. The paper aimed to document the demographic characteristics of the cohort of individuals who allocated to EQUIPS programs in both community and custodial settings, and their sentencing and criminogenic needs. Most individuals allocated to EQUIPS programs (80%) had a history of criminal justice system involvement, were male, with low education and most often from major cities or inner regional areas. Around a third were Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. Recommendations for improved program delivery include more timely risk assessment and allocation to programs during people’s sentences and enhancing equitable delivery between custodial and community settings based on individual risk and the types of programs available. This study also found that of all referred to EQUIPS, less than half participate in at least one session, and one quarter complete the treatment. Our next study will further explore the individual and operations/systems-level barriers to program participation and completion.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr Yun Zhang for her support in setting up the project and Ms Monica Carvalheiro for assistance with manuscript preparation. Authors EB, NN and MB were commissioned to undertake this work by CSNSW. MH is an employee of CSNSW. MB, EB, NN, MH led the conception of the study and MB lead the analyses and interpretation of the data, with assistance from MH, LS, MD, NN and EB. All authors contributed to and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was part of a research project commissioned by Corrective Services New South Wales.

Notes

1 Since the time of this study, LSI-R eligibility criteria for people in custody has been replaced by above average risk on an automated actuarial risk assessment tool that estimates risk of returning to CSNSW with a new conviction within two years, named the Custody Triage Risk Assessment Scale (Custody-TRAS; Raudino et al., 2019).