Assessment of Offenders and Programs: Enhancing Adherence with the Risk/Need/Responsivity (RNR) Mode...
Download
1 / 97

Don Andrews Professor Emeritus Distinguished Research Professor - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 132 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Don Andrews Professor Emeritus Distinguished Research Professor' - graham-rowland


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

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

[email protected]

Scotland June 1, 2007

DAA


Outline
OUTLINE with the Risk/Need/Responsivity (RNR) Model of Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation

  • 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


Rnr model of assessment and crime prevention
RNR Model of Assessment and Crime Prevention with the Risk/Need/Responsivity (RNR) Model of Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation

  • 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


Rnr model of assessment and crime prevention1
RNR Model of Assessment and Crime Prevention with the Risk/Need/Responsivity (RNR) Model of Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation

  • 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


Rnr model of assessment and crime prevention2
RNR Model of Assessment and Crime Prevention with the Risk/Need/Responsivity (RNR) Model of Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation

** 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)

* new since 1990

DAA


Rnr model of assessment and crime prevention3
RNR Model of Assessment and Crime Prevention with the Risk/Need/Responsivity (RNR) Model of Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation

* 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


DAA


Dosage as a separate principle
Dosage as a Separate Principle? cost-effective and humane pursuit of reduced offending through RNR-based human service delivery in the least onerous justice context

  • 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


Major risk and strength factors the big 4
Major Risk and Strength Factors: The Big 4 cost-effective and humane pursuit of reduced offending through RNR-based human service delivery in the least onerous justice context

  • 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


Major risk and strength factors the big 4 continues
Major Risk and Strength Factors: The Big 4 continues cost-effective and humane pursuit of reduced offending through RNR-based human service delivery in the least onerous justice context

  • 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


The central 8 the moderate 4
The Central 8: The Moderate 4 cost-effective and humane pursuit of reduced offending through RNR-based human service delivery in the least onerous justice context

  • 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 in anticriminal leisure and recreational pursuits

  • Substance abuse

DAA


Minor risk factors
Minor Risk Factors cost-effective and humane pursuit of reduced offending through RNR-based human service delivery in the least onerous justice context

  • 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


Some minor risk factors may be
Some minor risk factors may be … cost-effective and humane pursuit of reduced offending through RNR-based human service delivery in the least onerous justice context

  • 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


DAA cost-effective and humane pursuit of reduced offending through RNR-based human service delivery in the least onerous justice context


Background factors contributing to the big 4 in the immediate situation of action
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



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


Assessment Generations (Mean Meta-Analysesr 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


Assessment generations mean r general violence cont d
Assessment Generations (Mean Meta-Analysesr General/Violence) cont’d

  • 3G: LSI-R (.36 G)

    LSI-R, retest (.61 G: k = 2, very tentative)

  • 4G: LS/CMI (.41 G)

DAA


3g and 4g assessments of change increase in r square
3G and 4G Assessments of Change: Increase in Meta-Analysesr square

  • LSI-R (A & R 84) 294%

  • LSI-R (Raynor 04) 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


Ls cmi general risk need predictive validities
LS/CMI General Risk/Need Predictive Validities Meta-Analyses

k mean r 95% CI

  • General Recidivism 8 .41 .32/.50

  • Violent Recidivism 7 .29 .22/.35

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

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

  • Violent Recidivism 2 .47 .15/.78

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

DAA


Predictive Validity (Mean Meta-Analysesr) 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

DAA


Summary of risk need
Summary of Risk/Need Meta-Analyses

  • 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


Sources of variability in magnitude of validity estimates
Sources of variability in magnitude of validity estimates Meta-Analyses

  • *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


Effect of rnr adherence on offending
Effect of RNR Adherence on Offending Meta-Analyses

  • Does adherence with RNR reduce offending?

  • Over 50 meta-analyses since 1990

  • The Carleton University analyses focused on testing and development of RNR

DAA


Andrews dowden gendreau meta analysis of correctional treatment
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


Human service in a justice context
Human Service in a Justice Context Treatment

  • Differentiate between the sanction and the treatment

  • The action for purposes of reduced reoffending resides in the treatment

DAA


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

Sanctions:

2003: r = -.03

(k = 101)

Service:

2003: r = +.12

(k = 273)

DAA



DAA RNR


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

4 studies 6 studies 12 studies 1 study

None 1 principle 2 principles All three

DAA



Prison misconducts mean es by rnr adherence and staff organizational factors cpai
Prison Misconducts: Mean ES by RNR Adherence and Staff/Organizational Factors (CPAI)

  • French & Gendreau (2006): CPAI-2000

  • Unadj r

  • High CPAI .47 (k = 10) .38

  • Med CPAI .42 (k = 24) .20

  • Low CPAI .08 (k = 32) .16

  • r adjusted for sample size

DAA


Mean es by level of rnr adherence and program type
Mean ES by Level of RNR Adherence and Program Type Staff/Organizational Factors (CPAI)

DAA


DAA Staff/Organizational Factors (CPAI)


DAA Staff/Organizational Factors (CPAI)


Patterns in Risk Level & Tx Intensity Staff/Organizational Factors (CPAI)

Offender RISK LEVEL

% Recidivism: Tx BY RISK LEVEL

Impact on RECIDIVISM

Authors of Study

Minimum

Intensive

Low Risk

High Risk

16%

78%

22%

56%

( 6%)

( 22%)

O’Donnell et al., 1971

Low Risk

High Risk

3%

37%

10%

18%

( 7%)

( 19%)

Baird et al., 1979

Low Risk

High Risk

12%

58%

17%

31%

( 5%)

( 27%)

Andrews & Kiessling, 1980

Low Risk

High Risk

12%

92%

29%

25%

( 17%)

( 67%)

Andrews & Friesen, 1987

DAA

* Some studies combined intensive Tx with supervision or other services

37


A closer look at adherence with risk principle correlation of risk adherence with es
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


A closer look at adherence with risk principle correlation of risk adherence with es1
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


The Specification of General Responsivity through Core Correctional Practices: Mean ES by CCP (Mean r = .08, k =374)

  • Relationship Skills .34

  • Structuring Skills .27

  • Effective Reinforcement .31

  • Effective Modeling .28

  • Effective Disapproval .30

  • Structured Skill Training .30

  • Problem Solving Skill Training .25

  • Advocacy/Brokerage .11

  • Effective Authority .26

  • Also MI, Cog Self Change not tested

DAA


Adherence with general responsivity and correlation with es
Adherence with General Responsivity and Correlation with ES Correctional Practices: Mean ES by CCP (Mean r = .08, k =374)

  • General Responsivity .40

  • Plus Core Correctional Practices .43

    (Relationship and Structuring skills)

  • Plus Selection, Training and Clinical

    Supervision of Staff .46

DAA


Adherence to need principle correlation with effect size
Adherence to Need Principle: Correlation with Effect Size Correctional Practices: Mean ES by CCP (Mean r = .08, k =374)

  • # 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



Mean effect size by specific criminogenic need targeted overall mean effect 08 k 374
Mean Effect Size by Specific Criminogenic Need Targeted (Overall mean effect = .08, K = 374)

  • Antisocial Attitudes .21 (78)

  • Self-Control Deficits .22 (59)

  • Antisocial Associates .21 (51)

  • Non-Criminal Alternative

    Behavior in High Risk Sits .22 (18)

  • Family Process .29 (30)

  • School/Work .15 (88)

  • Substance Abuse .11 (36) ns

  • Leisure Recreation not tested

DAA


Mean effect size by specific non criminogenic needs targeted overall mean effect 08 k 374
Mean Effect Size by Specific Non-Criminogenic Needs Targeted (Overall mean effect = .08, K = 374)

  • Fear of official punishment -.05 (43)

  • Personal distress .08 (101) ns

  • Physical activity .08 (43) ns

  • Conventional Ambition .08 (29) ns

  • Overall Personal Non-Crim .04 (171)

  • Overall Interpers Non-Crim .01 (45)

DAA


Mean es r by intermediate targets
Mean ES (r) by Intermediate Targets (Overall mean effect = .08, K = 374)

  • Criminogenic needs targeted exclusively

    .22 (18/25) k = 111

  • Some criminogenic needs targeted, some non-crim needs targeted

    .13 (10/18) k = 81

    Unspecified targets

    .00 (-04/.04) k = 88

    Non-crim needs targeted exclusively

    -.03 (-.06/01) k = 99

DAA



Specific responsivity
Specific Responsivity Needs

  • 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


Integrity
Integrity Needs

  • 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


Other indicators of integrity
Other Indicators of Integrity Needs

  • Specific model of Tx

  • Tx Manuals

  • Adequate Dosage

  • Monitoring of Process/Intermediate Change

  • Small Numbers

  • Involved Evaluator

DAA


Mean Correlation of Therapeutic Integrity with ES by RNR Adherence

Low RNR ADHERENCE

r = .06ns

(k =144)

High RNR ADHERENCE

r = .29

(k = 230)

DAA


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

DAA


The big challenge programming in the real world versus the small demonstration project
The Big Challenge with Staff Selection, Training and Clinical Supervision: 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



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 2.30.29 .38

k = 047

Regular 0.82.03 .41

k = 209

DAA


Two separate worlds of practice
Two Separate Worlds of Practice Adherence and ES for Demonstration Projects vs Regular Corrections

  • “REAL WORLD” (k =209) “DEMO PROJECT” (k = 47)

  • Any Human Service

    65% 98%

    Mean RNR Adherence

    0.82 2.30

    Mean Breadth

    0.06 2.11

    Staff Selection, Training, Clinical Supervision

    01% 28%

    Sum Core Correctional Practices

    0.23 2.19

    Sum of Integrity Scores

    1.52 4.32

    Mean ES

    0.03 0.29

DAA


Dramatic need
Dramatic Need Adherence and ES for Demonstration Projects vs Regular Corrections

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


Assessment of offenders and adherence
Assessment of Offenders and Adherence Adherence and ES for Demonstration Projects vs Regular Corrections

  • Employ assessment instruments that structure assessment in ways that facilitate adherence with RNR

  • 4th 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


Assessment of programs and adherence
Assessment of Programs and Adherence Adherence and ES for Demonstration Projects vs Regular Corrections

  • 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


Reliability of cpai nesovic 2003
Reliability Adherence and ES for Demonstration Projects vs Regular Corrections of CPAI: Nesovic (2003)

  • Questionnaire

    Total Score

    I-R .96

    IC .88

  • Interview

    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


DAA Adherence and ES for Demonstration Projects vs Regular Corrections


Mean es and cpai tx score eta by setting and offender type
MEAN Adherence and ES for Demonstration Projects vs Regular CorrectionsES 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


Mean es and cpai tx score eta by quality of primary studies
MEAN Adherence and ES for Demonstration Projects vs Regular CorrectionsES 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


Mean es and cpai tx score eta by type of program targets
MEAN ES and CPAI Tx Score Adherence and ES for Demonstration Projects vs Regular CorrectionsEta 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



DAA Effect for Ohio HWHs (Lowenkamp)


The challenge of alternative perspectives on criminal behaviour
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


Some feminist and critical criminological challenges
Some Feminist and Critical Criminological Challenges Behaviour

  • ….(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


DAA


  • 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


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 ns

  • Contribution of Age reduced to a

    minor one with LSI controlled .11 .

DAA


Rettinger sample of female offenders 57 month follow up of 411 r 63
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


Lsi r predictive validity estimates with female offenders
LSI-R Predictive Validity Estimates with Female Offenders 411 (r = .63)

  • Rettinger (1998) CA (ON) .63 (411)

  • McConnell (1996) CA (Fed) .61 (xx)

  • Andrews (1982) CA (ON) .53 (97)

  • Coulson et al (1996) CA (ON .51 (526)

  • Lowenkamp et al (2001) US .37 (125)

  • Raynor et al (2000) UK .36 (125)

  • Folson et al (undated) CA (Fed) .30 (91)

  • Holtfreter et al (2004)* US .17 (134)

  • Reisig et al (2006)* US .05 (235)

  • MEAN r .39 (.24/.54) k = 9

  • MEDIAN .37

    * 2 reports on same project

DAA


Claire goggin and paul gendreau 2004 unpublished manuscript
Claire Goggin and Paul Gendreau: 2004 unpublished manuscript 411 (r = .63)

  • 14 predictive validity estimates for

    the LSI-R with female offenders:

    .41

DAA


DAA 411 (r = .63)


Humanistic clinical challenges
Humanistic/Clinical Challenges 411 (r = .63)

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


Humanistic clinical challenges1
Humanistic/Clinical Challenges 411 (r = .63)

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


Humanistic clinical challenges2
Humanistic/Clinical Challenges 411 (r = .63)

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



DAA Needs


Two separate worlds of practice1
Two Separate Worlds of Practice Needs

  • 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% 00%

    Sum Core Correctional Practices

    0.98 0.13

    Sum of Integrity Scores

    3.45 2.31

    Cog Social Learning

    29% 02%

DAA


Dowden (2005: Italy): Female Offenders Needs(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


The challenge for those who promote the targeting of noncriminogenic needs
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


Enhance rnr adherence
Enhance RNR Adherence noncriminogenic needs

  • Conduct assessments of risk/need

  • Structure case management

  • Conduct program-level assessments of RNR Adherence, Staffing and Integrity

DAA


Some recent disappointments
Some Recent Disappointments noncriminogenic needs

  • 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


Risk/need assessments often not employed systematically in assignment of cases: how then to you insure that programs are reserved for

  • moderate and high risk cases

  • who present with the criminogenic needs that the program addresses

    Avoid low risk cases interactions with higher risk cases

DAA


DAA


Underscore importance of staff competence and integrity
Underscore Importance of according to the relationship and structuring skills required by the programSTAFF 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


  • Higher risk cases less likely to participate according to the relationship and structuring skills required by the program

    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


Motivational interviewing
Motivational Interviewing according to the relationship and structuring skills required by the program

  • 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


  • Specific Responsivity: according to the relationship and structuring skills required by the program

    reduce barriers

    enhance access

    build on strengths

    respond to learning style/ability

    respond to motivational issues (MI)

    responsive to gender, age, ethnicity

DAA


Gpcsl and rnr are limited and are works in progress but
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


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

DAA


Gpcsl and rnr are limited and are works in progress but1
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


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

DAA


How to enhance personal well being including that of potential victims of crime
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


How to enhance personal well being including that of potential victims of crime1
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


ad