Transcript Offender Assessment Utilizing the Risk-Need

A web presentation for
RSAT - T&TA
by Roberta C. Churchill -ACJS



This presentation builds upon the last two
sessions on Assessments and Screening.
It will review three of the Principles of
Effective Intervention – Risk, Need and
Responsivity – and their importance in
offender assessment, treatment / case
planning and provision of treatment.
There will also be a brief look at the history of
offender assessment as well as an overview of
4th Generation RNR Assessment Instruments.
Screening
◦ Short; used with every offender in an intake-type
setting
◦ Identifies offenders who might have the
characteristic in question (e.g., mental health
problem, substance abuse problem)
◦ Helps “triage” offenders for immediate attention
◦ Help decide need for a more comprehensive
assessment
◦ Usually requires little to no training to administer
◦ Longer and more comprehensive; results give a
multi-dimensional perspective of the offender
◦ Helps to develop specific recommendations for
treatment and case planning
◦ Identifies needs that may require specialized
services and/or community based referrals for
re-entry planning
◦ Usually requires training to administer and
interpret the results
RISK
NEED
RESPONSIVITY

How likely a person is to engage in criminal
behaviors

What areas in a person’s life should be
targeted for intervention / supervision in
order to decrease their likelihood of future
criminal behavior

What personal strengths and/or specific
individual factors might influence the
effectiveness of treatment services
• Match level of services to level of risk
• Match level of services to level of risk
• Prioritize supervision and treatment
resources for higher risk clients
• Match level of services to level of risk
• Prioritize supervision and treatment
resources for higher risk clients
• Higher risk clients need more intensive
services
• Match level of services to level of risk
• Prioritize supervision and treatment
resources for higher risk clients
• Higher risk clients need more intensive
services
• Low risk clients require little to no
intervention
• Match level of services to level of risk
• Prioritize supervision and treatment
resources for higher risk clients
• Higher risk clients need more intensive
services
• Low risk clients require little to no
intervention
• “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”
Patterns in Risk Level & Tx Intensity
Offender
RISK LEVEL
% Recidivism:
Tx BY RISK LEVEL
Impact on
RECIDIVISM
Authors of
Study
O’Donnell et al.,
1971
Minimum
Intensive
Low Risk
16%
22%
( 6%)
High Risk
78%
56%
( 22%)
Low Risk
3%
10%
( 7%)
High Risk
37%
18%
( 19%)
Low Risk
12%
17%
( 5%)
High Risk
58%
31%
( 27%)
Low Risk
12%
29%
( 17%)
High Risk
92%
25%
( 67%)
Baird et al.,
1979
Andrews & Kiessling,
1980
Andrews & Friesen,
1987
•Some studies combined intensive Tx with supervision or other services
14
Compiled from: Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J., Hoge, R.D. (1990). Classification
for Effective Rehabilitation: Rediscovering Psychology. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 17: 19.
Bonta, J et al., 2000. A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program., Vol. 27 No 3:312-329.
Criminal Justice and Behavior
Recent Study of Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision
in Canada
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
High Risk
Low Risk
Treatment
Non-Treatment
31.6
32.3
51.1
14.5
Bonta, J. et al, 2000. A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program. Vol. 27 No 3:317 – 329. Criminal
Justice and Behavior
Triage: Cutting the “Tail” Off One End of Your Caseload
Low Risk Offender – has
more favorable pro-social
thinking and behavior
than other risk levels.
Divert to voluntary
programming, work units,
early release / parole.
16
Risk Principle tells us WHO to target …
… so now what do we DO?
• Assess criminogenic needs and target those
needs with treatment and interventions
Criminogenic ??
•
Dynamic or “changeable” risk factors that
contribute to the likelihood that someone will
commit a crime.
•
Dynamic or “changeable” risk factors that
contribute to the likelihood that someone will
commit a crime.
•
Changes in these needs / risk factors are
associated with changes in recidivism.
“People involved in the justice system have
many needs deserving treatment, but not all
of these needs are associated with criminal
behavior.”
- Andrews & Bonta (2006)
1.
Anti-social Attitudes
1.
2.
Anti-social Attitudes
Anti-social Peers
1.
2.
3.
Anti-social Attitudes
Anti-social Peers
Anti-social Personality Pattern
1.
2.
3.
4.
Anti-social Attitudes
Anti-social Peers
Anti-social Personality Pattern
History of Anti-Social Behavior
1.
2.
3.
4.
Anti-social Attitudes
Anti-social Peers
Anti-social Personality Pattern
History of Anti-Social Behavior
These are knows as the “Big Four” Risk Factors
Most highly correlated with criminal behavior
among all other factors
1.
2.
3.
4.
Anti-social Attitudes
Anti-social Peers
Anti-social Personality Pattern
History of Anti-Social Behavior
(non-criminogenic)
These are knows as the “Big Four” Risk Factors
Most highly correlated with criminal behavior
among all other factors
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Anti-social Attitudes
Anti-social Peers
Anti-social Personality Pattern
History of Anti-Social Behavior
Family / Marital Factors
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Anti-social Attitudes
Anti-social Peers
Anti-social Personality Pattern
History of Anti-Social Behavior
Family / Marital Factors
Lack of Achievement in Education /
Employment
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Anti-social Attitudes
Anti-social Peers
Anti-social Personality Pattern
History of Anti-Social Behavior
Family / Marital Factors
Lack of Achievement in Education /
Employment
Lack of Pro-social Leisure Activities
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Anti-social Attitudes
Anti-social Peers
Anti-social Personality Pattern
History of Anti-Social Behavior
Family / Marital Factors
Lack of Achievement in Education /
Employment
Lack of Pro-social Leisure Activities
Substance Abuse






Self-esteem
Anxiety
Lack of parenting skills
Medical needs
Victimization issues
Learning disability
Although NOT criminogenic risk factors, they
are important to include in an effective RNR
assessment.
WHY?

They may need to be addressed before or
concurrently along with criminogenic needs
in treatment since they may represent a
barrier to effective participation in treatment
otherwise.


They may need to be addressed before or
concurrently along with criminogenic needs
in treatment since they may represent a
barrier to effective participation in treatment
otherwise.
IT’S THE HUMANE THING TO DO.
High Risk offenders
need MORE treatment
and supervision to
DECREASE their
likelihood of
recidivism
Low Risk offenders
need LESS treatment
and supervision to
DECREASE their
likelihood of
recidivism
High Risk offenders
need MORE treatment
and supervision to
DECREASE their
likelihood of
recidivism
1.
2.
3.
4.
Anti-Social Attitudes
Anti-Social Peers
Anti-Social Personality Pattern
History of Anti-Social Behavior
Low Risk offenders
need LESS treatment
and supervision to
DECREASE their
likelihood of
recidivism
5. Family / Marital Issues
6. Lack of Achievement in Education
and Employment
7. Lack of Pro-social Leisure Activity
8. Substance Abuse
Risk Principle tells us WHO to target …
Need Principle tells us WHAT to target …
… so now HOW do we do it?
• Identify offender strengths as they can be
considered “protective” factors that may be
built upon in treatment planning
• Computer skills
• Strong family relationships
• High educational level
• History of stable employment
• Strong ties to recovering community
•Identify specific individual factors that
might influence the effectiveness of
treatment services
• Anxiety
• ADHD
• Motivation Level
• Gender
• Reading Level / ESL
• Language
How important is this really?
Adherence to Risk, Need, General Responsivity by Setting:
Community Based versus Residential Programs
40
Decrease
35
30
Recidivism
25
20
15
Residential
Community
10
5
0
Increase
-5
-10
0
1
2
3
# of Principles Adhered to in Treatment
-15
Source: Adopted from Andrews and Bonta (2006). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (4th). Newark:
LexisNexis.
A Brief History of
Assessments

Based on Professional Judgment
◦ Unreliable, inaccurate
◦ Not helpful for case management



Better at predicting risk than First Generation
Based on historical / static items
Unable to show change post-treatment




Assessed offender needs as well as risk level
Included dynamic / changeable items
Theoretically based
Capable of re-assessment




Include identification of offender strengths
Assess offender responsivity factors
Include particular non-criminogenic needs
Stress the integration of assessment results
into treatment / case planning, review and
interventions



It actually DOES assess risk level, identify
criminogenic needs and specific responsivity
factors
Has a user’s / scoring manual and offers
training in the administration and
interpretation of results
Is normed on the population it is being
administered, and preferably in the same
setting




It is “user-friendly”
Permits re-assessment to show change
Demonstrates inter-rater reliability:
two different staff members would score the
same offender reaching the same / similar
scores
Is valid for all offender types regardless of
gender, ethnicity, race, offense type, state,
region or country
Valid, Reliable
RNR
Assessment
Public Safety
is Ensured
*
Cost Efficient
Treatment Plan
*
Appropriate
Placement and
Services
Re-Assessment
*
near end of
Review & Revise
treatment cycle
Informed
Re-Entry /
Reintegration
Plan
Correctional Offender Management Profiling
for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS)
Static Risk and Offender Needs Guide (STRONG)
Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS)
Level of Service / Risk, Need, Responsivity (LS/RNR)
Level of Service / Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI)
Youth Level of Service / Case Management Inventory
(YLS/CMI)
This project was supported by grant No. 2010-RT-BXK001 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance.
The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the
Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of
Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, the SMART Office, and the Office for
Victims of Crime.
Point of view or opinions in this document are those of
the author and do not represent the official position
or policies of the United States Department of Justice.

Description: This webinar aims to help RSAT staff sharpen their
clinical focus on particularly important treatment goals. We will
draw distinctions between broad objectives (e.g., “begin a
strong recovery,” “learn to be drug-free”) and specific and
measurable goals that represent foundational achievements of
sustainable recovery and that can be well targeted by
evidence-based approaches.