Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Don Andrews Professor Emeritus Distinguished Research Professor PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Don Andrews Professor Emeritus Distinguished Research Professor

Don Andrews Professor Emeritus Distinguished Research Professor

193 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Don Andrews Professor Emeritus Distinguished Research Professor

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

  1. 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 daandrews@rogers.com Scotland June 1, 2007 DAA

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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) * new since 1990 DAA

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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 in anticriminal leisure and recreational pursuits • Substance abuse DAA

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. DAA

  15. 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

  16. Illustration of Binomial Effect Size Display ( r )

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 3G and 4G Assessments of Change: Increase in r 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

  21. LS/CMI General Risk/Need Predictive Validities 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

  22. 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 DAA

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. Principle of Human Service: Do Not Rely on the Sanction Sanctions: 2003: r = -.03 (k = 101) Service: 2003: r = +.12 (k = 273) DAA

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

  30. DAA

  31. 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

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

  33. 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

  34. Mean ES by Level of RNR Adherence and Program Type DAA

  35. DAA

  36. DAA

  37. Patterns in Risk Level & Tx Intensity 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

  38. 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

  39. 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

  40. 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

  41. Adherence with General Responsivity and Correlation with ES • General Responsivity .40 • Plus Core Correctional Practices .43 (Relationship and Structuring skills) • Plus Selection, Training and Clinical Supervision of Staff .46 DAA

  42. 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

  43. Mean ES by Relative Targeting of Criminogenic and NonCriminogenic Needs

  44. 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

  45. 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

  46. Mean ES (r) by Intermediate Targets • 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

  47. Mean ES by Targeting of Criminogenic and NonCriminogenic Needs DAA

  48. 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

  49. 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

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