Faculty of Business, Law and Social Sciences Assessment Coversheet

School of Social Sciences and Feedback Form

Complete the details marked in the coloured text and leave everything else blank. Where appropriate, copy and paste your
submission after the first pages as indicated. You are reminded of the University regulations on cheating. Except where the
assessment is group-based, the final piece of work which is submitted must be your work. The close similarity between
submissions is likely to lead to an investigation for cheating. You must submit a file in an MSWord or equivalent format as tutors
will use MSWord to provide feedback including, where appropriate, annotations in the text.

Student Name Do not complete if subject to anonymous marking Reasonable Adjustments

Student Number 21183856

Check this box [x] if the Faculty has notified you
Course and Year Psychology with Criminology – Third Year that you are eligible for a Reasonable
Adjustment (including additional time) about the
Module Code CRI6091
marking of this assessment. Please note that
action may be taken under the University's
Module Title Rehabilitation, Reintegration, Re-Entry and Therapeutic Communities
Student Disciplinary Procedure against any
Module Tutor Dan Rusu student making a false claim for Reasonable
Adjustments.
Personal Tutor Rebeca Saw

First Marker First Marker

Dr Dan Rusu DG Date: 03/01/2024
Name: Signature:

Feedback:

Provisional Uncapped Mark

Marks will be capped if this was a
This was a good attempt. Please consider the feedback below to improve: late submission or resit assessment
and may be moderated up or down
Not sure why you went into a debate around defining criminology and criminal justice. This took you away from by the examination board.

the essay question. Please try and relate your discussions to the essay question and avoid departing from it.
Much of this is you discussing about random theories without clearly linking these together or tackling the essay 35 %
question.
You have made some good points when describing Positive Criminology. Nevertheless, the essay departed
significantly from the essay question which was about Therapeutic Communities. You focused on too many other
concepts (at a superficial level) and did not manage to tackle the question.
In the future, please make sure that you understand the question and that your writing is coherent (ideas are
linked together and read well together).
You did not pass the essay. To pass, please tackle the question, and consider all feedback here:

Further, please consider:

- Back up your claims with academic literature
- Improve sentence construction. Some sentences do not make sense.
- The essay is simply incoherent with sentences and paragraphs that are not linked together and with
evident confusion around theory.

Quality and Use of Standard English and Academic Conventions

 Spelling Errors Style is Colloquial Standard is a Cause for Concern

Grammatical Errors Inappropriate Structure If the box above has been ticked you should arrange a
consultation with a member of staff from the Centre for Academic
Punctuation Errors Inadequate Referencing Success via [email protected]

Moderation Comments (Please note that moderation is carried out through ‘sampling’. If this section is left blank, your work is not part of the sample.)

I agree with the grade given and would add that engaging with Moodle and the assessment support for the module is paramount to doing well and should be
utilised when preparing to resubmit.

Moderator Moderator
Leon Skerritt Date: 16.01.2024
Name: Signature:

0 – 39% 40 – 49% 50 – 59% 60 – 69% 70 – 79% 80 – 100%

Fail Third 2:2 2:1 First First

Provide an appraisal of positive criminology theory, e.g.: rehabilitation theory, desistance theories, restorative
justice, and therapeutic community models.
The student failed to Adequate appraisal of There is evidence for an The student provided a The student has The student has
provide an appraisal positive criminological acceptable appraisal of good appraisal of provided an excellent provided an
of a positive theories/theory. There positive criminological criminological theories. appraisal of positive outstanding appraisal
criminological theory. were some major theories/theory, but this There is evidence for a criminological theories. of positive
There is no evidence omissions and errors. has not reached very good understanding Excellent understanding criminological
for an understanding Some limited significant depth. of theory. There is of theory. Evidence of theories/theory which
of the key issues and engagement with evidence of reading reading a range of includes original and
materials relating to specific literature was supplementary sources. appropriate reflective thinking.
this module. shown. supplementary sources. Evidence of reading a
wide range of
appropriate
supplementary
sources

Examine a range of positive criminological approaches and critically evaluate their worth in a climate of punishment.
The student failed to The student provided There is evidence for an The student provided a The student has The student has
examine positive an adequate acceptable examination good examination of a provided an excellent demonstrated an
criminological examination of positive and evaluation of range of positive examination of positive outstanding
approaches. There is criminological positive criminological criminological approaches criminological examination of
insufficient and largely approaches, but this approaches using with good evaluation and approaches. Excellent positive criminological
irrelevant material was overly descriptive appropriate academic synthesis of main issues evaluation and synthesis approaches.
used. and did not evaluate sources. and materials. of issues and materials. Extensive critical
their worth in a climate evaluation and
of punishment to any synthesis of issues
depth. and materials which
includes original and
reflective thinking.
Compare the utility of strengths-based to risk-based approaches.
The student fails to Adequate comparison There is evidence for an The student provided a The student has The student has
show any of the utility of strengths acceptable comparison good comparison of the provided an excellent demonstrated an
understanding of the bases to risk-based of the utility of utility of strengths-based comparison of the utility outstanding
utility of strengths- approaches. There is strengths-based approaches to risk-based of strengths-based to comparison of the
based approaches to limited evidence for approaches to risk- approaches and was able risk-based approaches. utility of strengths-
risk-based engagement with based approaches. This to substantiate their points There is engagement based to risk-based
approaches. adequate academic is mainly descriptive with appropriate academic with a range of approaches.
Insufficient and largely literature with elements of literature. supplementary sources Extensive critical
irrelevant material. evaluation. Some to compare the two discussions which
engagement with approaches. draw from a wide
literature is shown, but range of
more engagement is supplementary
needed. sources.
Utilise independent research skills and synthesise relevant academic material showing knowledge understanding
and critical thinking skills

Student fails to There is evidence for Student evidenced an Student evidenced a Student evidenced an Student evidenced
synthesise academic an adequate but acceptable level of good level of academic excellent level of an outstanding level
literature and does largely descriptive synthesis and critical knowledge and capacity academic knowledge of academic
not demonstrate assessment of thinking skills to synthesise information and capacity to knowledge and
knowledge and rehabilitation theory. which is discussed synthesise information capacity to
critical thinking skills. critically. which is discussed in synthesise and
depth and critically. critically discuss
literature.

CRI6091 essay

Analyse the comparative effectiveness of Therapeutic Community Model-based prisons in contrast to

conventional prison systems for offender rehabilitation.

Introduction:

Therapeutic Community (TC) Model-based prisons have emerged as a distinct approach to offender rehabilitation,
as compared with the traditional methods employed within the conventional prison system. This essay aims to
compare the efficacy of traditional prisons with the TC model. It will compare the effectiveness of therapeutic
community model-based prisons in contrast to conventional prison systems for offender rehabilitation. It will delve
into positive criminology and strength-based approaches, examine the therapeutic community model, and assess
desistance theories, such as biological and identity theories. This involves evaluating factors such as rehabilitation
focus, recidivism rates, quality of life for inmates, and the success of community integration.

Therapeutic Community Model-based Prisons and Conventional Prisons System:

TC Model-based prisons have been established in the UK since 1962, with the inauguration of Her Majesty's Prison
(HMP) Grendon as an innovative psychiatric prison experiment. Designed to accommodate individuals with
personality disorders and intricate psychological profiles, Grendon marked the inception of this approach to
rehabilitation (Richardson, & Zini, 2021). Roberts (1997) describes TC as "a consciously designed social
environment and programme within a residential or day unit in which the social and group process is harnessed
with therapeutic intent; in the therapeutic community the community is the primary therapeutic instrument”
(Robert, 1997). The TC Model-based prisons prioritise creating a supportive and therapeutic environment
conducive to personal growth and behavioural change. These prisons often employ structured daily routines, group
therapy sessions, vocational training, and peer support networks to foster a sense of community and responsibility
among inmates. By addressing underlying issues such as substance abuse, trauma, and mental health disorders, TC
Model-based prisons aim to reduce recidivism rates and promote successful reintegration into society upon release.
There are two types of TCs. First is the Democratic TC (DTC) and second is Concept TC (CTC). The DTC
predominantly located in the UK and Europe, have traditionally targeted inmates with mental illness. However, a
recent addition to this model has emerged within prison settings, specifically catering to individuals with learning
disabilities. On the other hand, the CTC, also known as “hierarchical TCs”, are prevalent in US and primarily
concentrate on prisoners struggling with substance abuse issues (Wong, Ellingworth, and Meadows, 2014). The
foundational social learning model of TCs has been enhanced through the integration of various supplementary
services, such as family support, educational programs, vocational training, medical care, and mental health
services. Changes in staffing compositions have occurred, with the increasing inclusion of traditional mental health,
medical, and educational professionals, alongside recovered paraprofessionals, to better cater to the diverse needs
of community (De Leon, 1994). On the other hand, conventional prison systems refer to the traditional approach of
the prison system. The conventional prison system typically follows the punitive model. The key features of the
conventional prison system include security, punishment, limited rehabilitation programs, limited inmate
autonomy, and hierarchical structure. This system faced criticism because of overcrowding and inadequate
resources for the rehabilitation.
In institutions using a therapeutic community approach for offenders, the emphasis is on developing a supportive
and therapeutic environment within the prison setting. In addition to incarceration, these facilities seek to provide
rehabilitation and assistance. In contrast, traditional prisons often prioritise punishment, control, and confinement
above rehabilitation (Cullen et al., 2011). While some traditional jails include rehabilitation programmes, they are
rarely as important to the prison's goal as therapeutic community model-based facilities. Group therapy,
counselling, education, vocational training, and other activities aimed at treating the underlying reasons for
criminal behaviour and fostering rehabilitation are frequently included in therapeutic community-based jail
programmes (Wexler, Melnick, & Cao, 2004).

Positive Criminology Theories:

Positive criminology emphasises being determined to assist rehabilitation, although there may be a chance of
offenders who may not want to continue to better themself, as they may not have the motivation and ability to do
so. Officers, for example, may become lenient towards victims, and may not be able to differentiate the severity of
crimes as some may become the norm. The offender may take advantage of this time to rebel and commit crimes;
selling drugs or stealing as they may believe there will be a lenient punishment (Seligman, 2019). The PC is
considered as the theoretical framework within the field of criminology that focuses on strengths, well-being, and
positive aspects of individuals and communities rather than solely on risk factors and criminal behaviour.

Historically, the PC perspective has been grounded in “Utilitarian Philosophy”. It is emphasising the need for
confinement and control for the greater good. However, with the escalating rates of incarceration and recidivism,
there's a growing call for more humanistic approaches to addressing offenders. This shift aligns with the principles
of positive criminology, which seeks to understand the processes of desistance—how and why individuals move
away from criminal behaviour—rather than solely focusing on the root causes of crime.

Rehabilitation is considered the central tenet of positive criminology. The rehabilitation prepares offenders for
successful reintegration into society through therapeutic communities. Contrary to the utilitarian view that
criminals should be segregated and punished, rehabilitation aims to address psychological, legal, moral, and social
aspects of offenders' lives. McNeil (2012) outlines four key components essential for effective rehabilitation.
Burnett (2008) states that rehabilitation is "a process, intervention or programme to enable individuals to overcome
previous difficulties and challenges related to their offending behaviour so that they can become law-abiding and
useful members of the wider community". Ronel and Elisha (2020), emphasise the significance of creating
supportive environments for offenders, which play a crucial role in facilitating rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation is broader scope of personal growth and transformation. The basic purpose of rehabilitation is to
restore individuals' capacity to function in society and uphold their civil rights. Allowing the offenders to prepare to
re-enter society once they are released. Maruna et al., (2004) discuss the importance of addressing the collateral
consequences of rehabilitation. There “must be legal barriers to reintegration, re-entry, resettlement in place for the
offenders” (Maruna et al., 2004). This is due to allowing the individuals to strive for the opportunity to improve
their self. The “idea behind this model is that real reintegration requires more than physical re-entry into the
community, but also should involve 'earning' one's place back in the moral community" (Maruna, et al., 2004). The
operations of Inside Out Trust in UK are an example of strengths-based work in the prison setting. The “Inside Out
Trust assisted in establishment of over 100 projects in 73 British prisons involving a variety of worthy causes, such
as the repair and refurbishment of computers, wheelchairs, bicycles, and electrical goods for charitable donations;
services for visually impaired and disabled people; and community regeneration schemes involving large-scale
refurbishment of derelict urban parks and public spaces”. For offenders, purported benefits of taking on the
position of helper include a sense of success, grounded increases in self-esteem, meaningful purpose, and a
cognitive restructuring towards accountability. Another consideration is link between the criminal, the victim, and
the community. Because neither personal nor judicial rehabilitation can effectively address this issue, we strive to
address it through restorative justice, which, is concerned with restoring these relationships. This is difficult to do
since the first two categories are incapable of resolving the issue: it is up to the parties to make apologies on their
own. According to Burke et al. (2018), "a person who has offended must repay or make amends before she can
trade up to a restored social position as a citizen of good character". This is due to the informal recognition and
acceptance - since social reintegration is not something that the state can achieve. Offenders are more likely to
experience optimism, empowerment, and a sense of recognition in the framework of Positive Criminology. This
method highlights their talents and potential for improvement, creating a positive attitude. Offenders may be held
accountable and driven to accept personal responsibility for their conduct. Initiatives for community participation
foster a sense of belonging and meaningful contribution. Desistance ideas foster the assumption that individuals
may change their ways and successfully reintegrate into society. Positive criminology, in general, seeks to promote
positive change by recognising criminals' strengths and concentrating on rehabilitation rather than primarily on
previous failures.

The Risks-Needs-Responsivity Model (RNR), the 1980s created by Bonta and Andrews (2007), is the primary
model for offender rehabilitation in UK prisons. This paradigm is based on three fundamental principles: risk, need,
and accountability. The RNR model's risk assessment assesses the potential harm an individual offers to society in
terms of reoffending. Individuals at high risk are prioritised for treatments targeted at controlling and minimising
their risk factors (Ward, et al. 2012). However, the RNR paradigm has been criticised for focusing solely on risk
reduction, thereby overlooking other important aspects of rehabilitation. The RNR model's idea of "need" entails
identifying and resolving criminogenic factors that lead to reoffending. These requirements may include drug
addiction problems or antisocial behaviour, and the approach prioritises treatments that address these concerns.
One critique is that the focus is only on criminogenic needs risking overlooking other important components of a
person's life, impeding a more holistic approach to rehabilitation. The third RNR model element, responsiveness,
emphasises personalising treatments to an individual's learning style, talents, and personality. While differentiation
is an important idea, some opponents argue that responsivity may fail to consider the bigger picture of an
individual's life and needs (Andrews, et al., 2011). Therapeutic communities, use a positive criminology approach,
addressing persons generally rather than exclusively concentrating on criminogenic demands. By addressing many
parts of an offender's life, this personalised and comprehensive treatment tries to raise the possibility of desistance.
Critics of the RNR model say that its narrow focus on risk reduction and criminogenic requirements may restrict its
overall success, particularly when contrasted to more inclusive and individualised methods seen in therapeutic
communities (Ronel, and Segev, 2015). Ultimately, the comparison implies that a positive criminology approach,
such as that seen in therapeutic communities, may provide a more successful and inclusive method for criminal
rehabilitation. The emphasis on comprehensive intervention, individualised therapy, and addressing parts of an
individual's life other than criminogenic needs is consistent with the aims of encouraging desistance and
minimising recidivism.

The rehabilitation approach used in this context is grounded in Good Lives Model (GLM). The GLM, developed by
Ward and Stewart in 2003, offers an alternative to the constraints associated with standard risk management
techniques. The GLM has earned an international reputation for its use in sex offender treatment programmes as
well as its effectiveness for other varied offenders. Women are frequently victims of physical, sexual, or domestic
violence. This implies that they have more complicated needs than males that are not being satisfied in a jail
setting. Furthermore, most primary carers are women, and sending them to prison strains family life at home. (2022
Justice Committee (Bywater, 2017). At its foundation, GLM provides a strengths-based approach to rehabilitation,
based on the concept that reducing reoffending risk involves the development of people's capacities and qualities.
People who committed sexual offence convictions experience in prison Sexual offenders must be separated from
general population prisoners as otherwise they will be bullied and hurt. This will make it harder for the offender to
reform as if other offenders may find out they will be judged upon their actions which may result in committing
more serious offences for justice against sexual offenders. It calls into question the common belief that restricting
one's activities for the rest of one's life is the only way to prevent criminal behaviour. Instead, the GLM sees
intervention as a transformational process that helps an individual grow personally. A major foundation of the
GLM is the realisation that people engage in criminal behaviour to achieve desired results in their lives. This shift
away from the conventional view of criminal activity as fundamentally unusual or disordered views offending as an
expression of generally human aspirations, albeit manifested in destructive and antisocial ways. The GLM sees
inadequacies and limitations within the individual and their environment as obstacles that direct these impulses
down incorrect and harmful paths. Within the GLM, rehabilitation is more than just removing difficulties; it is an
effort to improve an individual's functioning. The concept emphasises the need to develop intervention programmes
that are aligned with offenders' interests, talents, and ambitions, allowing them to develop the skills needed to attain
personally meaningful results. In this way, GLM's strength-based approach to rehabilitation tailors’ rehabilitation to
the person, considering the diversity of requirements and objectives. The GLM, which is ethically based on human
dignity and universal human rights, lays a strong focus on human agency. It recognises people's capacity to set
objectives, make plans, and act freely in pursuit of those goals. In the GLM, instrumental or secondary goods serve
as a concrete way of acquiring primary goods. The paradigm emphasises approach objectives as realistic strategies
to indirectly pursue avoidance goals and handle dynamic risk variables, such as finishing an apprenticeship or
joining a social group. This emphasis on positive, pro-social activities is consistent with the GLM's ultimate
purpose of helping offenders’ development of the information, skills, opportunities, and resources required to
achieve their life values without causing harm to others. The GLM emerges as a multidimensional and practical
theory of offender rehabilitation that provides a thorough grasp of individuals' needs, values, and ambitions. Its
strength-based approach, emphasis on human dignity, and targeted interventions all lead to a more successful and
individualised technique for resolving conflict. Because of its versatility, the model serves as a good foundation for
desistance-oriented treatments, promoting a change towards a more beneficial and comprehensive strategy for
offender rehabilitation.

Dr James Gilligan, a psychiatrist has undertaken extensive studies on the therapeutic method in prison
environments, emphasising the need to address fundamental psychological difficulties. Gilligan contends that
violence is frequently motivated by intense sentiments of shame, humiliation, and helplessness (Cordess, 2001). In
the context of prison, he contends that punitive tactics are ineffective in addressing the underlying reasons for
criminal behaviour. Instead, he suggests a therapy strategy centred on repairing these deep emotional traumas.
Using a trauma-informed approach to assist guarantees that inmates are not re-traumatised. It is a collaborative
strategy that allows convicts to be heard rather than criticising them. Offending never occurs in isolation, there may
be a reason behind it. Helping people with the fundamental reasons for crime and their trauma, rather than simply
locking them up, can help reduce crime. One significant example of Gilligan's effect is his work at the Bridgewater
State Hospital in Massachusetts, where he developed therapeutic procedures for violent criminals (Cordess, 2001).
He emphasised the necessity of creating a therapeutic setting that promotes open communication, and empathy, and
treats the inner distress that underpins violent behaviour. Gilligan's approach is emphasising the importance of a
supportive and rehabilitative environment within prisons. He believes that by treating the emotional and
psychological reasons that contribute to criminal behaviour, the prospects of effective reintegration into society are
greatly improved. Unlike typical prisons, Gilligan's therapeutic approach tries to minimise recidivism by treating
the underlying reasons for violent behaviour. His research highlights the potential benefits of bringing therapeutic
ideas into correctional facilities to promote treatment and rehabilitation.

Dr Shadd Maruna's research on desistance provides critical insights into the process of transitioning away from
criminal behaviour, which connects to the larger subject of offender rehabilitation. Maruna emphasises the
relevance of personal narratives and "redemption scripts," which show how individuals recreate their past
experiences to coincide with their identity as someone moving away from crime. This viewpoint offers insight into
the subjective and dynamic character of desistance, implying that developing a "good enough" narrative—one that
gives a feeling of purpose and transformation—can greatly ease the path to recovery (Maruna, LeBel, and Lanier,
2004). This viewpoint offers insight into the subjective and dynamic character of desistance, implying that
developing a "good enough" narrative—one that gives a feeling of purpose and transformation—can greatly ease
the path to recovery (Maruna, et al., 2004). Maruna's study highlights the complexities of criminal rehabilitation
efforts, emphasising the importance of taking psychological and identity-related aspects into account to promote
effective reintegration back into society. Thus, his study adds vital insights to the area of criminology, influencing
both theoretical knowledge and practical treatments targeted at lowering recidivism and boosting desistance.

Dr. Irwin's (1985), renowned sociological work, notably his hypothesis of "identity dissonance" inside the prison
setting, provides vital insights into the psychological complications experienced by people incarcerated. This
hypothesis is based on the idea that incarceration imposes specific responsibilities and expectations on convicts,
potentially leading to conflict with their current self-identities (Jacobs and Giordano, 2017). Identity dissonance
arises in the prison setting when individuals experience a misalignment between their self-perception and the
responsibilities placed on them inside the limits of the penal system. Traditional prisons, with their strict systems
and dehumanising circumstances, exacerbate this contradiction. Internal problems arise when inmates negotiate an
environment that may not reflect their ideals or self-image. When analysing the consequences of jail rehabilitation
programmes, the relevance of Silver's idea becomes clear. Traditional correctional institutions' harsh circumstances
and punitive character can create identity dissonance, making it difficult for individuals to actively participate in
rehabilitation programmes. Internal conflict caused by a fractured self-identity may limit their ability to participate
successfully in personal growth and recovery initiatives (Irwin, 2010). Therapeutic communities, like HMP
Grendon, on the other hand, take a more humanistic and individual-focused approach. The emphasis on
rehabilitation in such environments is to reduce identity dissonance by providing a supportive and rehabilitative
environment. This method recognises the importance of resolving inmates' psychological issues and seeks to link
the rehabilitation process with everyone's self-identity. Dr Silver's research recommends a more in-depth
investigation of the psychological impact of prison circumstances on the identities of criminals. It emphasises the
significance of establishing environments that not only recognise the humanity of persons in the criminal justice
system but also actively strive towards positive identity modifications. Prisons may play a critical role in promoting
rehabilitation and lowering recidivism rates by identifying and treating identity dissonance, eventually contributing
to the larger objective of establishing a more equitable and effective criminal justice system (Irwin, 2010).

Comparative Analysis:

The effectiveness of TC Model-based prisons vs traditional prison systems for criminal rehabilitation is a
complicated question in criminology. The traditional punishment systems that prioritise confinement and control.
While TC Model prioritise rehabilitation through a supportive and therapeutic setting. These facilities offer a range
of programmes, including group therapy, counselling, education, and vocational training, to address the core
reasons for criminal behaviour and promote rehabilitation (Condell, and Lambert, 2004; Wexler et al., 2004).
However, the effectiveness of these programmes varies, and obstacles such as offenders' lack of desire or support
from law enforcement could hinder beneficial rehabilitation results (Baumeister et al., 2001; Seligman, 2019).

The comparison of traditional prisons versus TC Models for criminal rehabilitation is complicated, with many
factors impacting their effectiveness. Weale's (2001) study, which found lower recidivism rates among members in
therapeutic communities like Grendon, demonstrates the potential benefits of such models. These therapeutic
communities offer a positive atmosphere and an emphasis on personal development, which may help offenders
refrain from reoffending. Participants' sincere desire for positive transformation, as well as age-related
development, may have contributed to their success. In contrast, typical jails may fail to address criminals'
complete requirements, limiting their transition away from criminal lives. Traditional jails, in contrast to
therapeutic communities, may prioritise punishment and control above treating the underlying reasons for criminal
behaviour. When choosing a rehabilitation model, it is critical to consider individualised aspects such as the gravity
of the offence, the offender's psychological requirements, and their willingness to change. TC Models, with their
more individualised and humanistic approach, tend to be more effective at producing good results and lowering the
chance of recidivism. In conclusion, while both typical prison and therapeutic community models have advantages,
TC appear to provide a more thorough and customised approach to criminal rehabilitation. Therapeutic
communities that prioritise rehabilitation and address the underlying issues that lead to criminal behaviour have the
potential to considerably reduce recidivism rates and contribute to the effective reintegration of criminals into
society. Hence, TCs function as microcosms, evolving by the prevailing cultural norms. They operate under the
regulation of the HMPPS and the Community of Communities, providing a structured framework for their
operation. However, the integration of therapy with security poses a significant challenge, highlighting the
complexity of evaluating the effectiveness of TC treatment. Each resident's experience within the TC is unique,
making it difficult to quantify the factors contributing to their transformation and measure the impact on
recidivism, especially considering the variability in post-TC support. Despite these challenges, TCs offer a
comprehensive, immersive approach to treatment, focusing on holistic development and everyday behaviours.
Unlike many other forensic interventions, TCs address not only group therapy but also individual actions, leading
to effective treatment for individuals with a history of offending and personality difficulties. Research indicates that
TC treatment contributes to reducing reconviction rates and improving psychological well-being, including self-
esteem, emotional regulation, and pro-social attitudes.
References:

Andrews, D. A. et al. (2011) The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model: Does Add the Good Lives Model
Contribute to Effective Crime Prevention? Criminal justice and behaviour. [Online] 38 (7), 735–755.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., and Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is Stronger than Good. Review of
General Psychology, 5(4), 323-370. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323

Bywater, P. (2017). The majority of women in prison have been victims of domestic abuse. [online] Prison Reform
Trust. Available at: https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/majority-of-women-in-prison-have-been-victims-of-domestic-
abuse/.

Condelli, L., and Lambert, E. (2004). An evaluation of the effectiveness of drug treatment programming in a prison
therapeutic community. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 39(1), 45-66.

Cordess, C. (2001) Violence: Reflections on Our Deadliest Epidemic by James Gilligan. London: Jessica Kingsley.
1999. 306 pp. £12.95 (pb). ISBN 1 85302 8428. British Journal of Psychiatry 178 (2) p.185–187.

Cordess, Christopher. (2001). Violence: Reflections on Our Deadliest Epidemic. British Journal of Psychiatry -
BRIT J PSYCHIAT. 178. 10.1192/bjp.178.2.185-a.

Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C. L., and Nagin, D. S. (2011). Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring
science. The Prison Journal, 91(3_suppl), 48S-65S.

De Leon, G., (1994). The therapeutic community: Toward a general theory and model. NIDA research
monograph, 144, pp.16-16.

Irwin, J. (2010). Lifers: Seeking Redemption in Prison. [online] Google Books. Routledge. Available at:
https://books.google.co.uk/books? [Accessed 10 Dec. 2023].

Jacobs, L.A. and Giordano, S.N.J. (2017). ‘It’s Not Like Therapy’: Patient-Inmate Perspectives on Jail Psychiatric
Services. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 45(2), pp.265–275.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-017-0821-2.

Kewley, S. (2017). Positive criminology: An alternative to punitive approaches. Criminal Justice Matters, 107(1),
26-27.

Maruna, S., and Ramsden, D. (2004). Living to Tell the Tale: Redemption Narratives, Shame Management, and
Offender Rehabilitation. In A. Lieblich, D. P. McAdams, & R. Josselson (Eds.), The narrative basis of
psychotherapy (pp. 129–149). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10682-007.

Maruna, S., LeBel, T. P., & Lanier, C. S. (2004). Generativity behind bars: Some "redemptive truth" about prison
society. In E. de St. Aubin, D. P. McAdams, & T.-C. Kim (Eds.), The generative society: Caring for future
generations (pp. 131–151). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10622-009.

Richardson, J. and Zini, V., (2021). Are prison-based therapeutic communities effective? Challenges and
considerations. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 17(1), pp.42-53.

Roberts, J., (1997). How to recognise a therapeutic community. Prison Service Journal, pp.4-7.

Ronel, N. and Elisha, E., (2020). Positive criminology: Theory, research, and practice. In Oxford Research
Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice.

Ronel, N. and Segev, D. (eds.) (2015) Positive criminology. First edition. [Online]. New York; Routledge.

Seligman, M.E., (2019). Positive psychology: A personal history. Annual review of clinical psychology, 15, pp.1-
23.
Ward, T. et al. (2012) The Good Lives Model and the Risk Need Responsivity Model: A Critical Response to
Andrews, Bonta, and Wormith (2011). Criminal justice and behaviour. [Online] 39 (1), 94–110.

Wexler, H. K., Melnick, G., and Cao, Y. (2004). Risk and prison substance abuse treatment outcomes: A
replication and challenge. The Prison Journal, 84(1), 106-122.

Wong, K., Ellingworth, D. and Meadows, L., (2014). Literature Review: Therapeutic Environments/Communities
and Vulnerable Prisoners about the Care, Support, and Integration (CSI) Unit.