Charles Lloyd

Bio: Charles Lloyd is an academic researcher. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 133 citations.

What works?Evidence-based policy and practice in public services

Abstract: Foreword Ron Amann Introduction: introducing evidence-based policy and practice in public services Huw Davies, Sandra Nutley and Peter Smith Evidence and the policy process Sandra Nutley and Jeff Webb Part One: Analysis by service area: Health care: evidence to the fore Huw Davies and Sandra Nutley Education: realising the potential Carol Fitz-Gibbon Criminal justice: using evidence to reduce crime Sandra Nutley and Huw Davies Social care: rhetoric and reality Geraldine Macdonald Welfare policy: tendering for evidence Robert Walker Housing: linking theory and practice Joe Doherty Transport: beyond predict and provide Francis Terry Urban policy: addressing wicked problems Tony Harrison Part Two: Thematic analysis: A strategic approach to research and development Huw Davies, Gloria Laycock, Sandra Nutley, Judy Sebba and Trevor Sheldon Debates on the role of experimentation Huw Davies, Sandra Nutley and Nick Tilley Non-experimental quantitative methods John Hutton and Peter Smith Contributions from qualitative research Philip Davies Making a reality of evidence-based practice Sandra Nutley and Huw Davies Concluding remarks: learning from the past, prospects for the future Huw Davies, Sandra Nutley and Peter Smith.

Imprisonment and Reoffending

Abstract: Imprisonment is the most severe punishment in democratic societies except for capital punishment, which is used only in the United States Crime prevention is its primary rationale Imprisonment may affect reoffending in various ways It may be reduced by some combination of rehabilitation and what criminologists call specific deterrence Sound arguments can be made, however, for a criminogenic effect (eg, due to antisocial prison experiences or to stigma endured upon release) Remarkably little is known about the effects of imprisonment on reoffending The existing research is limited in size, in quality, in its insights into why a prison term might be criminogenic or preventative, and in its capacity to explain why imprisonment might have differential effects depending on offenders’ personal and social characteristics Compared with noncustodial sanctions, incarceration appears to have a null or mildly criminogenic effect on future criminal behavior This conclusion is not sufficiently firm t

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of young offender treatment programs in Europe

Abstract: To examine the effectiveness of young offender rehabilitation programs in Europe as part of an international project on the transnational transfer of approaches to reducing reoffending. A literature search of approximately 27,000 titles revealed 25 controlled evaluations that fulfilled eligibility criteria, such as treatment of adjudicated young offenders below the age of 25, equivalence of treatment and control groups, and outcomes on reoffending. In total, the studies contained 7,940 offenders with a mean age of 17.9 years. Outcomes in the primary studies ranged widely from odds ratio (OR) = 0.58 to 6.99, and the mean effect was significant and in favor of treatment (OR = 1.34). Behavioral and cognitive-behavioral treatment ranked above average (OR = 1.73), whereas purely deterrent and supervisory interventions revealed a slightly negative outcome (OR = 0.85). Programs that were conducted in accordance with the risk–need–responsivity principles revealed the strongest mean effect (OR = 1.90), which indicates a reduction of 16 % in reoffending against a baseline of 50 %. Studies of community treatment, with small samples, high program fidelity, and conducted as part of a demonstration project had larger effects; high methodological rigor was related to slightly smaller outcomes. Large effect size differences between evaluations from the UK and continental Europe disappeared when controlling for other study characteristics. Overall, most findings agreed with North American meta-analyses. However, two-thirds of the studies were British, and in most European countries there was no sound evaluation of young offender treatment at all. This limits the generalization of results and underlines the policy need for systematic evaluation of programs and outcome moderators across different countries.

The offender group reconviction scale: a statistical reconviction score for use by probation officers

Abstract: Summary. The criminal courts in England and Wales may request the probation service to submit pre-sentence reports which are considered by magistrates and judges before making their sentencing decision. Pre-sentence reports must include an assessment of the risk of reoffending and the risk of harm to the public which the convicted offender presents. The offender group reconviction scale is a statistical aid to such risk assessment. We describe the scale and the statistical analysis on which it is based, and we discuss some statistical aspects of its interpretation and use.

Treatment and Management of Psychopaths

Abstract: About 20 years ago, Hare and Schalling (1978) edited a book on the results of the first NATO Advanced Study Institute on psychopathy. This volume contained a chapter on “Approaches to Treatment” from Suedfeld and Landon (1978) that began as follows: “Even a quick review of the literature suggests that a chapter on effective treatment should be the shortest in any book concerned with psychopathy. In fact, it has been suggested that one sentence would suffice:’ No demonstrably effective treatment has been found. ” (p. 347). In a review from the 1990s, Blackburn (1993, p. 202) drew two main conclusions: “First, while classical psychopaths have been shown to respond poorly to some traditional therapeutic interventions, it has yet to be established that “nothing works” with this group. Second, some offenders with personality disorders do appear to change with psychological treatment. ”