Assessment of Offenders and Programs: Enhancing Adherence with the Risk/Need/Responsivity (RNR) Model of Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation Don Andrews Professor Emeritus Distinguished Research Professor Department of Psychology & the Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada Scotland June 1, 2007 [email protected]

DAA 1

OUTLINE

• Principles of Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) • Look at the research evidence on prediction • Look at the research evidence on intervention • The importance of assessment 1) systematic assessment of offenders 2) systematic assessment of staff, managers, programs • Challenges for RNR: Implementation Critical criminology and feminist challenges Clinical psychological challenges Crime Prevention Jurisprudence • RNR and GPCSL are quite flexible and readily integrate with some clinical psychological and women-specific concerns DAA 2

RNR Model of Assessment and Crime Prevention • Psychological Theory: General Personality and Cognitive Social Learning Perspectives (GPCSL) on criminal behaviour (Understanding variation in the criminal behavior of individuals: Do not rely on sociology of crime rates, or class-based theories; or justice theories of deterrence or restoration; or forensic mental health perspectives, or….) •

Introduce Human Service: Do not rely on the sanction

DAA 3

• • RNR Model of Assessment and Crime Prevention

Risk

: The level of service should increase with level of risk

Need

: Set intermediate targets of change that actually link with criminal behavior (target criminogenic needs or dynamic risk factors) • *Breadth of intermediate targets/multimodal •

Responsivity

: Use powerful influence strategies – –

General

, use behavioral, cognitive social learning strategies

Specific

, match intervention modes and strategies to learning styles, motivation, demographics of case and

*build on strengths Professional Discretion

: Non-adherence to RNR for specified reasons DAA 4

RNR Model of Assessment and Crime Prevention **

Community-Based

setting preferred (best if treatment occurs in the natural environment)

Staff Practices

: Relationship and Structuring Skills Core Correctional Practices (CCP): including modeling, reinforcement, *Motivational Interviewing, *Cognitive Self Change,……) *Beliefs: “RNR is effective.” “I possess the skills and it is worthwhile to practice accordingly” (Self-efficacy in regard RNR practice) DAA 5

* new since 1990

RNR Model of Assessment and Crime Prevention

* Management and Organizational Concerns

Staff Selection, Training and Clinical Supervision Dosage Integrity of implementation Monitoring for RNR Adherence Ties with External Agencies and broader community……

* new since 1990

DAA 6

• Generally, promote the ethical, legal, decent, just, cost-effective and humane pursuit of reduced offending through RNR based human service delivery in the least onerous justice context DAA 7

Dosage as a Separate Principle?

• Dosage and the high risk cases Encourage participation of higher risk cases Discourage drop-outs by higher risk cases Discourage participation in, and encourage drop-outs from, programs not in adherence with RNR DAA 8

Major Risk and Strength Factors: The Big 4 • Antisocial attitudes , values, beliefs, rationalizations supportive of crime cognitive emotional states of anger, resentment, defiance, feeling mistreated; criminal identity; schema, criminal scripts (sets of inter related perceptions, interpretations and actions) • Antisocial associates and relative isolation from anticriminal others Quality of Relationship Structuring (favorable/unfavorable to crime DAA 9

Major Risk and Strength Factors: The Big 4 continues • Antisocial personality pattern : restlessly aggressive, weak self control, adventurous pleasure seeking, callousness 5 Factor Low Agreeableness Low Conscientiousness Caspi Weak Constraint Negative Emotionality • A history of antisocial behavior evident from a young age, involving a number and variety of antisocial acts DAA 10

The Central 8: The Moderate 4 • Parenting/family problems in the domains of affection/caring and monitoring/supervision • Low levels of achievement and satisfaction in school and at work • Little involvement recreational in anticriminal pursuits leisure and • Substance abuse DAA 11

Minor Risk Factors • • • •

Low verbal intelligence Personal emotional distress (low self-esteem) Low Positive emotionality (being unhappy and unsociable) Low Spirituality

• • • •

* Psychopathology ( Major Affective, Schizophrenia, Internalizing) History of victimization / abuse Lower class origins Biological anomalies Fear of official punishment

DAA 12

Some minor risk factors may be …

• important responsivity factors verbal intelligence personal distress mental disorder • having their effect through the central eight Abuse -> anger, irritability Lower class origins -> low educational success * irrelevant to crime DAA 13

Social support for crime Be havioural history Balance of rewards and cos ts for crim inal and noncrim inal acts Criminal conduct Antisocial personality

DAA 14

Background Factors Contributing to the Big 4 in the Immediate Situation of Action

Age, ethnicity, gender, class of origin Neighborhood *Family/marital *School/work * Moderate 4 *Leisure/recreation *Substance Abuse Victimization DAA 15

Comparison of Recidivism Rates Effect Size, r = .65 -.35 = .30

65%

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

35% Control

Illustration of Binomial Effect Size Display ( r )

Treatment

16

Grand Mean of the Mean Validity Estimates from Eight Meta-Analyses

(including Bonta, Hanson, Lipsey, Gendreau….): A & B (2006 [66) • Grand Mean for the Big Four .26 (CI = .19 / .33) • Grand Mean for the Moderate Four .17 (CI = .12 / .21) • Grand Mean for the Minor Risk/Need Factors .04 (CI = -.04 / .12) DAA 17

Assessment Generations (Mean

r

for assessment approaches) General Recidivism: Andrews, Bonta & Wormith, 2006) • 1G : Clinical Judgment (.10G) • 2G: Corrections: Wisconsin (.31G) SFS (.30 G) SIRS (.36 G) • 2G: Forensic Mental Health: PCL-R (.27G) VRAG (.39 Violence)* * return to violence in a moment DAA 18

Assessment Generations (Mean

r

General/Violence) cont’d • 3G : LSI-R (.36 G) LSI-R, retest (.61 G: k = 2, very tentative) • 4G : LS/CMI (.41 G) DAA 19

3G and 4G Assessments of Change: Increase in

r

square

• LSI-R (A & R 84) • LSI-R (Raynor 04) 294% 293% LSI example: from an r of .36 to an r of .61

• OIA Need (Law 04) 282% • OIA Risk, Need, Acute 159% (Brown 04) Acute dynamic factors are fast changing and enhance prediction over the short-term DAA 20

LS/CMI General Risk/Need Predictive Validities

k mean r 95% CI

• General Recidivism • Violent Recidivism 8 .41

7

.29

.32/.50

.22/.35

• Serious (Incarceration) • Violent Recidivism 5 .37 .35/.40

• Based on 8 studies of 9 samples cited in the LS/CMI Manual (A, B & W 2004) 2

.47

.15/.78

(R: including history of Violence: G & W; R & A; Barnoski & Aos) DAA 21

Predictive Validity (Mean

r

) of Minor Risk Factors, Unstructured Prof Judgment, Moderate Risk Factors, Major Risk Factors, Composite of Central Eight Risk Factors (LS/CMI Risk/Need) and Reassessment of Composite 0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

Minor Prof Judg Mod R Major R Composite w Reass 0.3

0.2

0.1

0

DAA 22

Summary of Risk/Need

• Solid Evidence regarding the major risk/need factors • Solid Evidence that offenders can be differentiated according to risk of criminal recidivism • Less agreement regarding labeling or grouping of factors • Reasonably solid understanding of sources of increased validity estimates DAA 23

Sources of variability in magnitude of validity estimates

• *structured preferred over unstructured • *actuarial over professional judgment • *assess a number and variety of major risk factors • *training and clinical supervision of assessors • *reassessments of dynamic factors • *multi-domain / multi-method assessments of risk factors and of outcome • *long follow-up periods • *untreated samples yield larger prediction estimates DAA 24

Effect of RNR Adherence on Offending

• Does adherence with RNR reduce offending?

• Over 50 meta-analyses since 1990 • The Carleton University analyses focused on testing and development of RNR DAA 25

Andrews, Dowden, Gendreau Meta-Analysis of Correctional Treatment

• Overall, 374 tests of treatment (K = 374) • Mean ES (

r

) = .08, 95% CI = .06 / .10

• Range: -.43 to +.83

• What are the sources of variability?

A major source of large ES estimates is human service that is in adherence with RNR DAA 26

Human Service in a Justice Context

• Differentiate between the sanction and the treatment • The action for purposes of reduced reoffending resides in the treatment DAA 27

Principle of Human Service: Do Not Rely on the Sanction 0.14

Sanctions: 2003: r = -.03

(k = 101) 0.12

0.1

0.08

Sanction Service 0.06

Service: 2003: r = +.12

(k = 273) 0.04

0.02

0 -0.02

DAA

-0.04

28

Mean ES by Adherence to the Principles of Human Service and RNR

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 -0.05

Hu m an Se rv ic e Ri sk Ne ed

DAA

Re sp on si vi ty

Principle Not Met Principle Met 29

Mean ES by Adherence to RNR

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

-0.05

Mean Effect Size

-.02

0 .02

1

DAA

.18

2 .26

3

30

Effectiveness of Sexual Offender Treatment Based on Adherence to Risk, Need and Responsivity (Hanson et al., 2006)

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0 -0.02

-0.04

4 studies 6 studies 12 studies 1 study None 1 principle 2 principles All three DAA 31

Violent Recidivism: Mean ES by Level of RNR Adherence (D & A, 2000)

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 -0.05

0 None 1 Low

DAA

2 Mod 3 Full

32

Prison Misconducts: Mean ES by RNR Adherence and Staff/Organizational Factors (CPAI) • French & Gendreau (2006): CPAI-2000 • • High CPAI Unadj .47 (k = 10) .38

r

• Med CPAI • Low CPAI .42 (k = 24) .08 (k = 32) • r adjusted for sample size .20

.16

DAA 33

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 -0.05

-0.1

Mean ES by Level of RNR Adherence and Program Type

Family Academic SubstAbu Work/Voc Relapse P 0 None 1 Low 2 Mod

DAA

3 Full

34

Mean ES by Adherence to RNR and by Gender

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 -0.05

Women Men

.17

.18

.02

-.02

.03

.02

None Low

DAA

Mod .36

.24

High

35

0.40

Correctional Setting: Mean ES by Adherence to Principles

Custody

.35

0.35

0.30

Community 0.25

.22

0.20

0.15

.12

.17

0.10

0.05

0.00

-.10 0 .01

.03

-0.05

-0.10

-0.15

0 1 2 3

DAA 36

37

Patterns in Risk Level & Tx Intensity

Offender RISK LEVEL % Recidivism: Tx BY RISK LEVEL Minimum Intensive Impact on RECIDIVISM Authors of Study Low Risk High Risk Low Risk High Risk Low Risk High Risk Low Risk High Risk 16% 78% 3% 37% 12% 58% 12% 92% 22% 56% 10% 18% 17% 31% 29% 25% (



6%) (



22%) (



7%) (



19%) (



5%) (



27%) (



17%) (



67%) O’Donnell et al., 1971 Baird et al., 1979 Andrews & Kiessling, 1980 Andrews & Friesen, 1987

37

A Closer Look at ADHERENCE with RISK Principle: Correlation of Risk Adherence with ES

• AG: Aggregate Estimate (sample wide: e.g., majority of cases have a prior offence)

.12

• WS: Within sample estimate (lower and higher risk groups identified)

.36

• Correlation of recidivism rate in the control group with ES (Nesovic sample)

.39

***Direct linear increase of ES with risk level of samples: ES continues to increase even among samples with the highest recidivism rates in the control group

DAA 38

A Closer Look at ADHERENCE with RISK Principle: Correlation of Risk Adherence with ES

Only applies with otherwise appropriate Tx Adherence with Human Service No Yes .10ns .16

Need Principle .05ns .25

General Responsivity .09ns .25

HS, Need and General Responsivity .01ns .26

DAA 39

The Specification of General Responsivity through Core Correctional Practices: Mean ES by CCP (Mean r = .08, k =374) • Relationship Skills .34 • Structuring Skills • Effective Reinforcement • Effective Modeling • Effective Disapproval • Structured Skill Training .27

.31

.28

.30

.30

• Problem Solving Skill Training • Advocacy/Brokerage .25

.11

• Effective Authority .26

• Also MI, Cog Self Change not tested DAA 40

Adherence with General Responsivity and Correlation with ES

• General Responsivity .40

• Plus Core Correctional Practices (Relationship and Structuring skills) .43

• Plus Selection, Training and Clinical Supervision of Staff .46

DAA 41

Adherence to Need Principle: Correlation with Effect Size

• # of Criminogenic Needs Targeted exceeds number of non-criminogenic Needs .25

Magnitude of difference between # of criminogenic and # of non-criminogenic needs targeted (Breadth) .58

DAA 42

Mean ES by Criminogenic - Non Criminogenic Need 0.6

0.5

Mean ES 0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

-.07

-.05

-0.1

-.04

-.01

.14

.19

.22

.25

.32

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 .51

6

Mean ES by Relative Targeting of Criminogenic and NonCriminogenic Needs 43

Mean Effect Size by Specific Criminogenic Need Targeted (Overall mean effect = .08, K = 374) • Antisocial Attitudes • Self-Control Deficits • Antisocial Associates • Non-Criminal Alternative .21 (78) .22 (59) .21 (51) Behavior in High Risk Sits .22 (18) • Family Process • School/Work • Substance Abuse .29 (30) .15 (88) .11 (36)

ns

• Leisure Recreation not tested DAA 44

Mean Effect Size by Specific Non-Criminogenic Needs Targeted (Overall mean effect = .08, K = 374) • Fear of official punishment • Personal distress • Physical activity • Conventional Ambition • Overall Personal Non-Crim • Overall Interpers Non-Crim -.05 (43) .08 (101)

ns

.08 (43)

ns

.08 (29)

ns

.04 (171) .01 (45) DAA 45

Mean ES (r) by Intermediate Targets • Criminogenic needs targeted exclusively

.22

• Some criminogenic needs targeted, some non crim needs targeted (18/25) k = 111

.13

Unspecified targets

.00

(10/18) k = 81 (-04/.04) k = 88 Non-crim needs targeted exclusively

-.03

(-.06/01) k = 99 DAA 46

Mean ES by Targeting of Criminogenic and NonCriminogenic Needs

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 -0.05

CrimExcl NoncrimExcl

DAA 47

Specific Responsivity

• What’s new – Psychopathy (Hare & Wong 2005) – Stages of Change, Motivation, Readiness – Gender-specific programming – Culturally-specific programming – Integrate the several personality models (Van Voorhis) – Static and Dynamic Responsivity factors – Mental Disorder DAA 48

Integrity

• The selection, training and clinical supervision of staff according to RNR • Selection, training and clinical supervision of staff according to relationship and structuring skills (High quality relationship, modeling, role playing, reinforcement, problem solving, motivational interviewing, cognitive self change…..Core Correctional Practices) DAA 49

Other Indicators of Integrity

• Specific model of Tx • Tx Manuals • Adequate Dosage • Monitoring of Process/Intermediate Change • Small Numbers • Involved Evaluator DAA 50

Mean Correlation of Therapeutic Integrity with ES by RNR Adherence 0.35

0.3

Low RNR ADHERENCE 0.25

r = .06ns

(k =144) 0.2

0.15

High RNR ADHERENCE r = .29

0.1

0.05

(k = 230) 0 Lo RNR Hi RNR

DAA 51

Mean ES by RNR Adherence including Breadth and Adherence with Staff Selection, Training and Clinical Supervision 0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 -0.05

None Low Mod Full + Breadth + Staffing

DAA 52

The Big Challenge

: Programming in the “REAL WORLD” versus the “Small Demonstration” Project • Mark Lipsey: the effects of treatment are much higher in demonstration projects than in the “real world” of routine programming • We too find this effect in our meta analyses (Demo: small samples, involved evaluator) DAA 53

Mean ES by Level of RNR Adherence and by Demonstration vs Regular Programming

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 -0.05

Demo Mixed Regular 0 None 1 Low 2 Mod 3 Full

DAA 54

Mean RNR Adherence Score, Mean ES and Correlation of RNR Adherence and ES for Demonstration Projects vs Regular Corrections Mean Mean Corr of RNR Adher ES Adh wES Demonstration k = 047

2.30

.29

.38

Regular

0.82

k = 209

.03

.41

DAA 55

Two Separate Worlds of Practice

• • “REAL WORLD” (k =209) Any Human Service 65% Mean RNR Adherence 0.82 “DEMO PROJECT” (k = 47) 98% 2.30

Mean Breadth 0.06

2.11

Staff Selection, Training, Clinical Supervision 01% 28% Sum Core Correctional Practices 0.23

Sum of Integrity Scores 2.19

1.52 Mean ES 0.03 4.32

0.29

DAA 56

Dramatic Need

to enhance RNR Adherence in regular corrections to enhance staff selection, training and clinical supervision consistent with RNR and core relationship and structuring skills to make regular corrections more like demonstration projects

DAA 57

Assessment of Offenders and Adherence

• Employ assessment instruments that structure assessment in ways that facilitate adherence with RNR • 4 th G: Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI), includes responsivity and strengths, case planning with reference to criminogenic and non criminogenic need, re-assessments DAA 58

Assessment of Programs and Adherence

• Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI) • CPAI – 2000: Gendreau & Andrews (2001) • Enhance adherence to RNR by assessing on-going adherence to RNR and other aspects of program integrity • Identify strengths, identify potential problems DAA 59

Reliability

of CPAI: Nesovic (2003)

• Questionnaire Total Score I-R .96

• Interview IC .88

Total Score I-R .98

IC .85

.

Inter-form (Q and I): .80 (Total Score) Mean Q slightly higher than mean I (p < 10) DAA 60

Mean ES by CPAI Score

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

-0.05

-0.01

Very Low 0.11

0.20

Low

DAA

Moderate 0.25

High

61

MEAN

ES and

CPAI Tx Score Eta by Setting and Offender Type

• Community (.60) / Institution (.44) • Restorative (.77) / Retributive (.51) • Justice Staff (.49) / Other Staff (.57) • Female (.60) / Male (.51) • Ethnic Minority (.53) / Majority (.50) • Violent Offenders (.54) / Nonviolent (.50) • Young Offenders (.52) / Adult (.51) DAA 62

MEAN

ES and

CPAI Tx Score Eta by Quality of Primary Studies

• Random Assign(.58) / Nonrandom (.46) • Attrition Problem (.49) / No problem (.62) • Internal Evaluator (.50) / External (.40) • Small Sample (.59) / Large Sample (.45) • Short Follow-up (.59) / Long FU (.54) • Atheoretical (.54) / Theoretical (.48) DAA 63

MEAN ES and CPAI Tx Score Eta by Type of Program (Targets)

• Antisocial Attitudes (.28) Anger / SC (.30) • Family (.59) Antisocial Associates (.45) • Substance Abuse (.48) Academic (.52) • Vocational / Employment (.65) • Self-esteem (.71) Physical Training (.65) • Conventional Ambition (.78) DAA 64

Relationship Between CPAI Significant Factors and Treatment Effect for Ohio HWHs (Lowenkamp)

22 24 20 16 12 8 4 0 -4 -8 -4 0-8 Factors Present 7 9-15 Factors Present 16-19 Factors Present

DAA 65

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

-

CPAI Correlation with ES

.44 .39 .33

.20

.50

.41

Nesovic Lowenkamp

Risk Asmt Gen Resp Total CPAI

DAA 66

The Challenge of Alternative Perspectives on Criminal Behaviour

• Reject GPCSL perspective • Reject RNR • Reject risk/need assessment * Disagree re criminogenic needs • Disagree with risk principle • Prefer non-structured interventions • Prefer social location and/or victimization theories • “Healing” or other outcomes more important than crime prevention DAA 67

Some Feminist and Critical Criminological Challenges

• ….(there is a)…skepticism within criminology and other social sciences about our ability to make accurate and reliable predictions of dangerousness and recidivism • Risk / need is immoral, racist, discriminatory, sexist….

DAA 68

• The compartmentalizing of risk identities is actually a spuriously correlated constellation of traits that, in reality, hinge upon the

actual

predictors of socioeconomic status, ethnicity, gender and age DAA 69

• The Major Causes of Crime in the view of the critics of PCC and RNR inequality in the distribution of social wealth, power and prestige victimization (emotional, physical, sexual, financial) rooted in capitalism and patriarchy. • Psychology and biology are minimized and social location variables are favored (age, ethnicity, gender, class..) DAA 70

LSI (4) X Age (2) x Gender (2) x Reliance on Welfare (2) in Relation to Recidivism (Three Year Post Probation Follow-Up)

N

= 561 • Overall corr of LSI with recidivism .44

• With controls for Age, Gender, Poverty .40

• Contributions of Gender and Poverty with controls for LSI • Contribution of Age reduced to a

ns

minor one with LSI controlled .

.11

DAA 71

Rettinger Sample of Female Offenders: 57 month follow-up of 411 (r = .63) • Survey of 12 indicators of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse (childhood / adulthood) • 82% of the women reported some form of abuse • Simple r’s vary from .05ns to .19 • Not a single or composite indicator linked with recidivism once LSI risk was controlled • Similarly with self-abuse and problems in the domains of money, parenting, family, and emotional difficulties. DAA 72

LSI-R Predictive Validity Estimates with Female Offenders

• Rettinger (1998) CA (ON) .63 (411) • McConnell (1996) CA (Fed) .61 (xx) • Andrews (1982) CA (ON) .53 (97) • Coulson et al (1996) CA (ON • Lowenkamp et al (2001) US • Raynor et al (2000) UK .51 (526) .37 (125) .36 (125) • Folson et al (undated) CA (Fed) • Holtfreter et al (2004)* US • Reisig et al (2006)* US • MEAN r • MEDIAN .30 (91) .17 (134) .05 (235)

.39 (.24/.54) k = 9 .37

* 2 reports on same project DAA 73

Claire Goggin and Paul Gendreau: 2004 unpublished manuscript

• 14 predictive validity estimates for the LSI-R with female offenders:

.41

DAA 74

Mean ES by Adherence to RNR and by Gender

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 -0.05

Women Men

.17

.18

.02

-.02

.03

.02

None Low

DAA

Mod .36

.24

High

75

Humanistic/Clinical Challenges

Good Lives Model (Ward & Stewart 03): Promote Personal Well-Being

• RNR is too negative (risk and need) – LS/CMI now surveys strengths – Strengths as specific responsivity • PCC is not “holistic” – personal (conscious and unconscious), – interpersonal, – community DAA 76

Humanistic/Clinical Challenges

Good Lives Model (Ward & Stewart 03)

• “Need” is not defined as it usually is in Psych – Correct: dynamic risk factors (in correctional tradition) – Look forward to a psychological model of need being developed and drawn upon • Based on a “rational choice” model – No: General Personality and Cognitive Social Learning model DAA 77

Humanistic/Clinical Challenges

Good Lives Model (Ward & Stewart 03

) • We should target enhanced well-being – Yes, when enhanced well-being represents an intermediate focus on criminogenic needs of the offender (in the domains of cognition, interpersonal relationships, family/marital, school/work, leisure/recreation, substance abuse) Yes, when ethical to do so (ethics of using the power of the criminal justice in the pursuit of mental health objectives) Yes, when RNR-based rehabilitation: reduced victimization enhances well-being of potential victims DAA 78

Mean ES by Targeting of Criminogenic and Non-Criminogenic Needs

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 -0.05

Crim Exc Mixed Non-crim

DAA 79

Self-Esteem Programs: Mean ES by CPAI Score (K = 13, k = 2 for High CPAI)

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 -0.1

-0.2

-.14

Very Low .06

Low 0 Moderate .24

High

DAA 80

Two Separate Worlds of Practice

• •

Noncriminogenic Needs are Targeted Predominantly NO (k = 258) YES (k = 116) Any Human Service 75% 69% Mean RNR Adherence 1.52 0.54

Mean Breadth 1.47

-1.26

Staff Selection, Training, Clinical Supervision 10% Sum Core Correctional Practices 00% 0.98

Sum of Integrity Scores 3.45 0.13

2.31

Cog Social Learning 29% 02%

DAA 81

Dowden (2005: Italy): Female Offenders (k = 55, 38 studies) Correlation of Mental Health approaches with Effect Size • Aspects of Emotional Well-Being as intermediate targets in Crisis Intervention -.27 Increase crime Group counseling -.13ns

Individual counseling, family….

Mean correlation with ES for 5 estimates with k varying from 12 to 6 for estimate -.10 (-.23/.02) DAA 82

The Challenge for those who promote the targeting of noncriminogenic needs • Conduct high quality outcome evaluations of programs that target non-criminogenic needs • Compare results when those programs are in adherence with RNR are not in adherence with RNR DAA 83

Enhance RNR Adherence

• Conduct assessments of risk/need • Structure case management • Conduct program-level assessments of RNR Adherence, Staffing and Integrity DAA 84

Some Recent Disappointments

• Project Greenlight (New York); • Cognitive Programs in England and Wales, in New Zealand, in Canada • HWHs in Ohio; • Drug Treatment in California; • MST, FFT & ART in state of Washington • ………..

DAA 85

Risk/need assessments often not employed systematically in assignment of cases: how then to you insure that programs are reserved for a) moderate and high risk cases b) who present with the criminogenic needs that the program addresses Avoid low risk cases interactions with higher risk cases DAA 86

• Staff should be selected, trained and clinically supervised according to the relationship and structuring skills required by the program Serious violations of these principles in the failed programs In Greenlight, staffing recommendations explicitly not followed DAA 87

Underscore Importance of

STAFF COMPETENCE

and

INTEGRITY

• Washington state: ART and FFT More Competent Therapists / Better Quality Implementation Reduced re-offending Less Competent Therapists / Poorer Quality Implementation Increased re-offending DAA 88

• Higher risk cases less likely to participate more likely to drop-out (self-selection out) Agencies and agents: disinclined to seek out and adapt for the “weakly motivated” Still a belief out there that higher risk cases cannot profit from programs (in particular, “psychopaths”) DAA 89

Motivational Interviewing

• A means of increasing the chances of higher risk cases becoming involved in treatment and actually completing treatment (the promise) • A means of enhancing the value of personal autonomy in prevention and rehabilitation (Astrid Birgden) DAA 90

• Specific Responsivity: reduce barriers enhance access build on strengths respond to learning style/ability respond to motivational issues (MI) responsive to gender, age, ethnicity DAA 91

GPCSL and RNR are limited and are “works in progress” but

• In the prediction of criminal behaviour of individuals, what does better than GPCSL and RNR?

• Concentrating on lower class origins, victimization history, low self-esteem, trusting the judgments of clinicians..???

DAA 92

Predictive Validity (Mean

r

) of Minor Risk Factors, Unstructured Prof Judgment, Moderate Risk Factors, Major Risk Factors and Composite of Central Eight Risk Factors (LS/CMI Risk/Need) 0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

Minor Prof Judg Mod R Major R Composite 0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

DAA 93

GPCSL and RNR are limited and are “works in progress” but

• What does better in guiding effective correctional treatment?

• Working with low risk cases? Targeting non-criminogenic needs? Using alternatives to the cognitive social learning influence strategies? Failing to select, train and supervise staff with reference to relationship and structuring skills?

DAA 94

Mean ES by RNR Adherence including Breadth and Adherence with Staff Selection, Training and Clinical Supervision 0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 -0.05

None Low Mod Full + Breadth + Staffing

DAA 95

How to Enhance Personal Well-Being Including that of Potential Victims of Crime

• Traditional mental health services with a focus on reducing personal distress and enhancing personal well-being • Services in adherence with RNR aimed at crime prevention (reducing victimization and its pains) justice agencies correctional agencies aftercare agencies forensic mental health (beyond incapacitation, beyond static risk factors) Crime Prevention Jurisprudence DAA 96

How to Enhance Personal Well-Being Including that of Potential Victims of Crime

• Services in adherence with RNR aimed at crime prevention (reducing victimization and its pains) • Crime Prevention as a Valued Outcome in general clinical and community psychology in general human and social services (child, youth, family services, ….

in primary prevention DAA 97