Offending behaviour programmes in the community: The effects on reconviction of three programmes with adult male offenders Emma J. Palmer 1 *, James McGuire 2 , Juliet C. Hounsome 1 , Ruth M. Hatcher 1 , Charlotte A. L. Bilby 1 and Clive R. Hollin 1 1 University of Leicester, UK 2 University of Liverpool, UK Purpose. This study presents the findings of an evaluation of the effect on reconviction of three general offending behaviour programmes in the English and Welsh Probation Service with adult male offenders. Method. The study employed a quasi-experimental design comparing the reconviction rates of three groups: offenders who were allocated to and completed a programme, offenders allocated to a programme but failed to complete, and a comparison group. Results. The main finding from the analyses indicated that, controlling for salient population factors, the offenders who had completed a programme had a lower rate of reconviction as compared with non-completers and comparison groups. Additionally, the non-completers had a higher rate of reconviction than the comparison group. Conclusions. The findings are discussed in light of the extant literature and a range of explanations is presented. Research suggests that offenders typically show distinctive social cognitive styles, including impulsivity and problematic social perspective-taking, and experience difficulties in solving interpersonal problems in socially appropriate ways (for a review, see Antonowicz & Ross, 2005). Therefore, offending behaviour programmes attempt to reduce reoffending by changing offenders’ behaviour through cognitive skills training. This approach to reducing reoffending is supported by the results of meta- analytic reviews of offender treatment, in which interventions based on cognitive- behavioural principles have been shown to be effective in reducing the rates of reoffending (e.g. Andrews et al., 1990; Lipsey, 1992; Lipton, Pearson, Cleland, & Yee, 2002). These meta-analyses have shown interventions to have an average effect size * Correspondence should be addressed to Dr Emma Palmer, Clinical Division of Psychiatry, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester LE5 4PW, UK (e-mail: ejp8@leicester.ac.uk). The British Psychological Society 251 Legal and Criminological Psychology (2007), 12, 251–264 q 2007 The British Psychological Society www.bpsjournals.co.uk DOI:10.1348/135532506X138873