Integrating Individual and Group-based Offence-focussed Psychological Treatments: Towards a Model for Best Practice

Abstract

This review explored outcomes of individual and group-based offence-focussed psychological treatments in studies published between 1 January 1990 and 31 August 2014. Very few high-quality studies using individual treatments (n = 13) were identified. There were even fewer comparisons of individual versus group-based treatment (n = 2); several studies incorporating both individual and group-based treatment components for high-risk high-need clients were also identified. Extant findings suggest comparable outcomes for group-based and individual treatment. In concluding, we adopt a pragmatic perspective and propose a model for conceptualising the role of individual treatment in offender rehabilitation and its relationship to group-based offence-focussed treatments. Group-based treatments are promoted due to their larger evidence base. Individual interventions may prepare clients for group treatment, and/or promote treatment gains when stable internal factors impair responsivity. Individual treatments may also help prevent high-risk clients from engaging in problem behaviours that may result in their removal from the programme. On occasions, individual treatments may be necessary to provide another treatment pathway when group treatments are not possible. Identifying and attending to responsivity factors through both individual and group-based treatments increases the likelihood that rehabilitation efforts are sensitive to each participant's needs.

Keywords:

• group
• individual
• offender
• rehabilitation
• treatment

Acknowledgement

This manuscript is the product of work conducted for Corrections Victoria, Australia, which sought advice on the role of individual interventions in their offender rehabilitation framework. During the course of this work we contacted experts in the field of offender rehabilitation both within and external to Corrections Victoria. Some of these experts' comments are incorporated within this review; we would like to acknowledge their contributions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.