Download (Acquisitive offenders - Specification for procurement

Research Specification:
Reoffending Factors and Rehabilitation Needs of
Burglars
Background
NOMS’ commissioning strategy has adopted a segmentation model which divides the entire
offender population into 35 segments – five risk groups and seven offence types.
Commissioning advice is provided in the form of summaries of evidence on effective
rehabilitation for each segment. The seven offence types are: sexual offending, violent
offending, acquisitive offending, robbery, drugs offending, motoring offending, and other.
Acquisitive offenders are the second most prevalent offence type on NOMS’ caseload (after
violent offenders) with over 14,000 acquisitive offenders in prison on the 30 June 2012 and
over 40,000 serving community sentences or on licence for these offences. Furthermore
acquisitive offenders are over-represented in the higher likelihood of reoffending segments.
To support the segmentation model and commissioning strategy, in 2012 NOMS
Commissioning Strategies Group commissioned a number of Rapid Evidence Assessments
(REAs), some of which are particularly relevant to the current study. The REA on “What
Works with Acquisitive Offenders?” identified that the main strategies for rehabilitation of
offenders have been training in cognitive skills and addressing drug dependency. However
the REA noted that in most outcome studies, there has been a failure to report outcomes by
offender type, so that it is not possible to be confident that these endeavours impact on all
offender types equally.
Consistent with the REA’s recommendations, the major rehabilitation investment for
acquisitive offenders across prison and probation to date has focused on substance misuse
treatment (especially methadone substitution prescribing) and cognitive skills programmes.
However, research evidence from within and outside our system indicates that offenders
convicted of burglary (and robbery) do not show reduced reoffending after completing
cognitive skills programmes, in contrast to those convicted of violence, sexual offences,
and drug offences, as well as those convicted of lesser acquisitive offences such as theft
(Robinson, 1988; Travers et al, 2013). Furthermore, National Treatment Agency data
indicate that treatment for drug dependency reduces lower level acquisitive offending (e.g.
shoplifting and theft), but it does not appear to significantly impact on burglary and
1
robbery offending. There is therefore a lack of knowledge about effective rehabilitation for
those convicted of burglary.
Motivations for burglary
Although it has not been established why cognitive skills and substance misuse interventions
do not appear to reduce reoffending for burglars, some plausible hypotheses can be
generated. It seems that neither cognitive deficits nor drug misuse, despite at least the
former being a prevalent characteristic of burglars (Wilson et al), are the major drivers for
burglars. It seems a reasonable hypothesis that other motives must be more influential. For
instance, this might be the influence of anti-social peers, as burglary is often committed in
groups, perhaps more so than other forms of criminal behaviour. Or it may be that burglary
is primarily a response to economic deprivation or desire for increased economic status, so
that burglary is viewed as a wage-earning activity akin to legitimate employment.
There is surprisingly little published research on this issue. While there is an enormous
literature on “criminals” generally, and a substantial literature specific to violent and
sexual offenders, acquisitive offending has received far less specific empirical attention,
and even fewer studies have investigated specific subtypes of acquisitive offending,
particularly in recent years. However a recent study commissioned by the Safer Leeds
Executive (Chenery, 2013) provides some clues. This was a qualitative study of 52 young
burglars accessed via various routes including prison, Youth Offender Teams and the police.
Although the study was largely angled towards matters of police interest, such as methods
for choosing properties to burgle, the findings point to some useful areas for further
exploration in relation to understanding burglary and reducing reoffending by burglars:

The usual age of entrance into burglary was 12 years with most burglars reporting
that they grew up seeing other people commit burglaries. Most commonly this was
older peers living in the same neighbourhoods rather than family members.

Burglars frequently described the buzz of burglary and it appeared that the
adrenalin rush was a major factor in their experience of committing crime.

Another major factor was clearly the economic reward. Burglars reported making
about £500 per burglary and frequently committing upwards of five burglaries in
one night. The money gained from crime far outweighs earning potential from most
conventional careers.

A hierarchy of acquisitive offending was implied, with burglars looking down on
shoplifters who they saw as drug dependent and choosing a form of crime with
greater likelihood of being caught. Instead burglars in this study did not seem to be
drug dependent or motivated to acquire money from burglary to fund a drug habit
(although some did spend some of their proceeds on recreational drug use).

The majority of burglars committed their crimes in pairs or small groups.
2
The Leeds Burglary study concluded that the main motivations for burglary are a) financial
and b) the thrill of the burglary itself. The data indicated that the choice to burgle was a
“rational choice” for these offenders, even if many of their actual burglaries were
opportunistic.
The interviews did not address the issue of what might deter burglars from criminal
lifestyles.
We wish to build on this study by investigating further the factors that burglars take into
account when making a rational choice about burglary. The existing literature, such as it is,
points to very different motivations for burglary compared to violent crime and it is
therefore likely that different approaches are needed to reduce reoffending.
We are particularly interested in three factors which, although established as risk factors
for general reoffending, have not been clearly described in terms of their specific
application to burglary. These are
(1) Criminal attitudes specifically in relation to burglary.
(2) Peer influence. The Leeds study indicated that the majority of burglars offended in
pairs or small groups (although a minority preferred to burgle alone so they did not
have to share the proceeds). They were also introduced to burglary by older peers
in their neighbourhood. This study focused on young burglars and there could be
reason to think that peer influence is greater among young adults (Warr, 2002)
because young adulthood is a time where status, loyalty and fear of ridicule are key
preoccupations. If burglary is a group crime more than any other, the nature of
peer influence for burglars may be particularly important to understand.
(3) Criminal self efficacy. Maruna’s groundbreaking research into desistance from
offending suggested that persistent offenders followed a script that he labelled
“doomed to deviance”, where they feel that crime is the only course they can
follow in life. However, Brezina and Topelli (2012) have offered an alternative
perspective on the self-concept of being criminal. Just as those in legitimate
occupations tend to form an identity associated with their profession or
employment, so might repetitive burglars and robbers view their criminal behaviour
positively, as a skill and something to be proud of. In Brezina & Topelli’s study, 80%
of offenders interviewed perceived themselves as being successful at crime, which
is contrasted with a history of failure at more legitimate endeavours such as school
and work. Furthermore, those with high criminal self-efficacy showed less intent to
go straight and were not deterred from offending by imprisonment or other
sanctions.
3
Possible triggers for desistance
A subsequent important question, if burglary is a rational choice, is what would change the
nature of their choice? Maruna (2001) has described the process of desistance, and the
concept of a turning point, but for those engaged in the business of encouraging
desistance, it is not clear what burglars with high criminal identity and self efficacy, and
good incomes, might experience as a turning point. If burglary is indeed driven by financial
reward and an adrenalin rush, how likely is it that these rewards will be replaced by the
reward of a steady and, in all likelihood, low income life as an “ex-offender”? Hence we
also wish this study to investigate what offenders see as the “not so good” aspects of
burglary, and what non-criminal dreams and aspirations they may have which could be the
clue to encouraging desistance.
Prisons as schools of crime
A common perception of imprisonment is the “school of crime” where prisoners use the
opportunity of a prison sentence to train each other in skills to get better at crime. There is
some evidence of this dynamic in youth settings where it is termed “deviancy training”, but
the evidence primarily relates to the strengthening of criminal attitudes rather than
upgrading of crime skills. While there is clear agreement that imprisonment by itself is
criminogenic (ie. it raises rather than reduces reoffending), academic work to date has
been unable to identify which of a number of a potential explanations causes this effect.
Therefore, it is possible that prisons do indeed increase reoffending through a “school of
crime” subculture but this has not been empirically demonstrated to be the reason (or one
of the reasons) for the criminogenic effect of imprisonment. Therefore, the final aim for
this study is to investigate burglars’ experiences of imprisonment as an opportunity for
learning new skills in relation to burglary.
Research aims
1. To further understand acquisitive offenders’ motives for offending and the relative
weight of different drivers. Within this question we aim to identify potential drivers
for acquisitive offending that are not necessarily captured by existing assessment
systems or identified by previous research, as well as identifying the extent to
which the sample describe known risk factors for reoffending within their accounts.
2. To identify the strength and relative contribution of the main nine risk factors for
criminal recidivism, as described in the NOMS Commissioning Intentions Document,
in relation to burglary specifically.
3. To further understand the nature of anti social attitudes and anti social lifestyle as
they are experienced by burglars, and the nature of the influence of anti social
peers and the mechanism by which this enables offending. We need a more precise
understanding of the nature of criminal attitudes, criminal identity and criminal
4
self-efficacy; and the extent to which these constructs drive offending, as well as
the extent to which a criminal identity is ego-syntonic for acquisitive offenders are they proud of their criminal identity, or do they feel it is something they are
doomed to? The latter would be suggested by Maruna’s concept of the “doomed to
deviance” script, but the former by Brezina & Topalli, 2012.
4. To identify acquisitive offenders’ views about the less good things about burglary,
the good things about the idea of a life that does not involve committing crime,
and their thoughts about what might constitute a turning point for them.
5. To identify the extent to which burglars feel that prison has intensified their
criminal attitudes and sense of identity, and whether they have learned new skills
for committing crime while in prison.
Research Questions
1. How do burglars explain their offending?
2. How do burglars describe the application of each of the following factors to their own
lives, how do they rate the strength of each of the following factors as causes of their
offending, and how do they describe how each factor influenced their choice to offend?

Anti social attitudes, including beliefs that acquisitive offending is justified and
having a positive criminal identity or criminal self efficacy.

Poor problem solving/impulsivity

Alcohol

Drugs

Anti social peers – being involved with a group of friends who commit crime

Anti social lifestyle – having a lifestyle that lacks routine and positive/constructive
activity

Homelessness – not having a regular place to live

Lack of employment or work skills including not having a job

Lack of a close relationship with someone who opposes criminal behaviour

Adrenalin buzz

Financial gain
3. What do burglars feel would be most likely to motivate, assist and encourage them
to give up offending in the future?
4. To what extent do burglars experience prison as a “school of crime”?
5
Method
We are seeking qualitative research to answer the above research questions involving
approx 60 offenders ideally divided into two groups:

adult men (Aged 25+) with an index conviction for burglary (not aggravated
burglary)

young adult men (aged 18-24) with an index conviction for burglary (not
aggravated burglary)
Where possible, participants with higher OGRS scores (50+) will be preferred.
The contractor will propose a topic guide to be agreed with NOMS that covers the research
questions underlying the study. Some potential prompts are included in Appendix 1 below.
The contractor will propose a sampling strategy that will enable sufficient range and
diversity to the sample. This should include consideration of the need to representatively
sample types of burglary (commercial and domestic), different levels of risk and criminal
history, and ethnicity. The contractor will be responsible for production of information
sheets and consent forms which will be agreed by the contract manager. The contractor
will propose a suitable analytical methodology to analyse the interview transcripts. The
contractor will propose a timescale and milestones that will enable the study to be fully
completed (i.e. final report revised after peer review) by the end of March 2014.
The contract manager will make arrangements with individual prisons for the research to be
carried out. It is envisaged that four prisons will be involved – two adult male prison, and
two young offender institutions. As several prisons are interested in the outcomes from this
study, we do not anticipate difficulty in recruiting sites for the study.
6
Appendix 1
Potential items for topic guide
RQ 1. How do burglars explain their offending?
Open question on reasons for burglary with prompts to identify key drivers, motivations and
rewards.
Extent to which burglary is seen as a way of life, occupation or career
Frequency with which burglary is linked to organised crime
RQ 2. How do burglars describe the application of each of the following factors to their
own lives, how do they rate the strength of each of the following factors as causes of
their offending, and how do they describe how each factor influenced their choice to
offend?

Anti social attitudes, including beliefs that acquisitive offending is justified and
having a positive criminal identity or criminal self efficacy.

Poor problem solving/impulsivity

Alcohol

Drugs

Anti social peers – being involved with a group of friends who commit crime; links
to more organised crime.

Anti social lifestyle – having a lifestyle that lacks routine and positive/constructive
activity

Homelessness – not having a regular place to live

Lack of employment or work skills including not having a job

Lack of a close relationship with someone who opposes criminal behaviour

Adrenalin buzz

Financial gain
Relative importance of buzz and financial gain – would one without the other still be
enough to want to burgle?
How much money is made from burglary
How money is spent – necessities, luxuries, self vs family vs others
Attitudes to burglary/stealing
Extent to which burglary is a group behaviour and what they see as the group dynamics
involved. Leadership, pressure on individuals to comply, shared norms, etc.
Perceived success at burglary. Skills needed to do it. View of own competence at burglary.
7
Any experiences of being pressured into burglary by others
Any family members or friends who oppose burglary and how they deal with that
RQ3. What do burglars feel would be most likely to motivate, assist and encourage them
to give up offending in the future?
Less good things about doing burglaries
Any doubts about burglary as a way of life (if it is a way of life)
Whether any other way of life is desirable and if so, why
Perceived obstacles or disadvantages to other ways of life
Experiences of attempts to change or be changed in the past, including experiences of
rehab programmes, RJ, and probation supervision. What was effective and what was not.
Views on the impact of being confronted with the victims of burglary e.g. in an RJ
conference.
RQ4.To what extent do burglars experience prison as a “school of crime”?
Whether learning/teaching takes place in prison about how to commit better burglaries/be
more successful at burgling
Examples of personal learning/teaching in relation to burglary skills
Examples of experiences in prison that have caused them to think again about burglary
Examples of things that might motivate them to think again
Extent to which conversations between prisoners discuss methods of burglary, share success
stories, establish hierarchies of efficacy, etc.
Pressure to present yourself as criminal vs going straight within prisoner network
8