Dr Ashley Batastini1, Dr Jonathan Singer2, Dr Michael Trood1, Mr Keegan Diehl2, Dr Robert Morgan3, Ms Suzanne Gray4
1Swinburne University Of Technology, Hawthron, Australia, 2Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA, 3University of Southern Illinois, Carbondale, USA, 4Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, USA
Biography:
Ashley Batastini is an Associate Professor in the Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science at Swinburne University of Technology. Her work focuses on developing novel intervention strategies for higher-risk populations, improving access to appropriate interventions at various stages of criminal legal involvement, and addressing systemic factors that can diminish the efficacy of interventions for those who offend.
The use of prison segregation or separate confinment is an overused method of containing high-risk and difficult-to-manage behavior, resulting in increasing calls for reform. To meet these demands, many agencies have initiated therapeutic alternatives, predominately in the form of diversion or step-down programs. To date, there have been no known attempts to systematically review what these programs look like in the field and whether they seem to be effective in improving psychological or behavioral functioning. Of the 699 documents produced from a comprehensive search, 10 met inclusionary criteria for a systematic review. Most evaluations were conducted in U.S. state departments of corrections and with men. While some studies showed favorable outcomes for alternative programs, many of these studies were rated as having lower scientific rigor. Overall, evidence of efficacy was mixed and suggest programs are not working as well as anticipated. Further, many articles provided limited or unclear details about the program content/structure, its delivery, demographics of the client population, or staffing requirements. This presentation will discuss aggregate findings from these studies, as well as common intervention features, methodological designs used, outcomes assessed, and key limitations. A case is made for researchers and industry partners to be more proactive and transparent about their efforts to reduce the reliance on separate confinement, including clearly reporting relevant outcomes associated with alternative programming. Finally, implications for reform and future research will be presented.