"Corrections and Psychology" Please respond to the following:

Chapter10FOrensicPsychology.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >"Corrections and Psychology" Please respond to the following:

269

Chapter 10

CORRECTIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

Correctional psychology is the application of psychological theory and research to the correctional system (Clements et al., 2007; Magaletta, Patry, Dietz, & Ax, 2007). We begin this chapter with overviews of the structure of the correctional system and the history of correctional psy- chology in the United States. Next, we discuss in greater detail two of the most important topics in correctional psychology: offender assessment and management. The selection, training, and support of correctional staff are covered in Chapter 9 .

In this chapter, you will become familiar with:

The structure of the correctional system in the United States T he practice of correctional psychology and how it has changed over time The importance of risk assessment and risk management in correc- tional psychology The major approaches to risk assessment and risk management, as well as some specifi c examples of risk assessment instruments and correctional treatment programs

• •

•

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES

Suppose you are a judge trying to determine the proper sentence for the fol- lowing case: white male, divorced, about 36 years old. Will plead no contest to drug-related offenses after being found intoxicated in violation of the conditions of probation. History of polysubstance abuse, including cocaine and heroin, since the age of about 8 years old. A penchant for self-destructive behavior—in the offender’s own words, “It’s like I have a loaded gun in my mouth and my

CASE STUDY

c10.indd 269c10.indd 269 11/3/09 5:47:48 PM11/3/09 5:47:48 PM

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 0 . W i l e y .

A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY AN: 309009 ; Roesch, Ronald, Hart, Stephen D., Zapf, Patricia A..; Forensic Psychology and Law Account: strayer.main.eds-live

270 Correctional Psychology

fi nger’s on the trigger, and I like the taste of the gunmetal.”1 Substance abuse has caused serious family and employment problems, including divorce and inability to get steady work. Numerous arrests for drug-related offenses including driving, carrying a handgun, and housebreaking while intoxicated. Multiple incarcerations, with sentences ranging up to three years. Repeated failure on community super- vision, including probation and parole violations, some stemming from refusal to provide or failure of court-ordered drug tests. Repeated attempts at substance use treatment, including community-based programs and more than a year spent in a correctional treatment facility, invariably followed by relapse.

As a judge, what kind of a sentence are you leaning toward? You could sentence the offender to lengthy probation and yet more treatment in an attempt to rehabili- tate him and help him become a productive member of society, although this has been tried repeatedly and over many years without apparent success. Alternatively, you could sentence the offender to a lengthy prison term in an attempt to deter him (“scare him straight”); at least this would protect the general public from his reck- less and irresponsible behavior.

This was the situation faced by a California judge in 2001, hearing charges against the actor, Robert Downey, Jr. The judge, infl uenced in part by state law regarding sentencing of nonviolent drug offenders and recognizing Downey’s long struggle to get control over his addictions, came down in favor of rehabilitation.

Mug Shot of Robert Downey Jr., as Photographed by the California Department of Correction in April 2001 Retrieved May 1, 2008 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/413283.stm. Source: The Smoking Gun Date: April, 2001 Author: Uncredited.

The story of Robert Downey, Jr., reminds us that many offenders in the criminal justice system have serious problems and the corrections system provides an opportunity to make positive changes. The challenge is to iden- tify which offenders are in need of help, what kind of help they need, and whether this help can be delivered in a way that also protects public safety.

1From “Addicted Downey Jnr jailed.” BBC News, 8/6/1999.

c10.indd 270c10.indd 270 11/3/09 5:47:49 PM11/3/09 5:47:49 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Correctional Psychology in the United States 271

So far, Robert Downey, Jr., has made the best of the opportunity given him by the sentencing judge. Downey achieved full sobriety in 2003 and has maintained it since then with the assistance of 12 - step programs, medita- tion, and yoga. He established a positive relationship with his son. He met a woman and established a stable intimate relationship, marrying her in 2005. His career blossomed: Although he always received critical acclaim for his acting, he has been working more steadily and on important productions. For example, he received a Golden Globe award and an Academy Award nomination for his supporting role in the 2008 fi lm, Tropic Thunder .

CORRECTIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN THE UNITED STATES

Part of the larger criminal justice system, the corrections system is responsible for supervising people who have been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of criminal offenses. When most laypeople think of the corrections system, they think about prisons. But depriving people of their liberty by institutionalizing them is considered a major infringement of civil rights, and it is permitted only in limited circumstances. Only a small percentage of people in the criminal justice system, perhaps 20% or so, are institutionalized; the rest are supervised in the community.

Several types of institutions are used in the criminal justice system. Jails are most often used for pretrial detention (i.e., to hold people who have been arrested until they must go to court) and to house people convicted of relatively short sentences (typically, up to 6 or 12 months). Most jails are closed, maximum security facilities — movement in or out of the facility is very restricted, and the perimeter is demarked with high walls or fences and razor wire. The population of jail detainees includes people whose lives are in a state of major disruption or confusion: some are acutely dis- tressed about being separated from their loved ones or losing their jobs due to arrest; others are intoxicated or in withdrawal, or suffering symptoms of mental disorder; yet others are fearful of the possibility that they may be sentenced to many years in prison. But because the typical stay in jail is quite short in duration — a few weeks or a few months, on average — the opportunities to offer programs or services are limited.

Prisons and penitentiaries are used to house people who receive cus- todial sentences. The length of the sentences may range from weeks or months to many years, or even life, refl ecting the diversity of offenders and crimes for which they have been convicted. To deal with this diver- sity, there are typically several types of prisons in a jurisdiction ’ s correc- tional system. Some institutions are very low security, perhaps including open or unsecured institutions such as work camps. These low - security

c10.indd 271c10.indd 271 11/3/09 5:47:49 PM11/3/09 5:47:49 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

272 Correctional Psychology

institutions permit the semblance of a normal life for offenders and facili- tate rehabilitation and readjustment to the community. Medium - and high - security institutions, in contrast, focus on keeping offenders separated from the community, but also may offer a variety of treatment and reha- bilitation programs.

Most offenders — perhaps 80% or more — are supervised in the commu- nity. There are three major forms of community supervision: bail, proba- tion, and parole. Bail is also known as pretrial release . It is used for people who have been arrested for or charged with criminal offenses and released into the community to await trial, and for people who have been convicted but are awaiting sentencing. The term of bail is often open - ended, and may last for many months. People may be granted bail based solely on their promise to attend court as directed, or they may be asked to guarantee attendance at court by putting up a bond or surety. In either case, people may have conditions placed on them that will (temporarily) restrict their rights and freedoms. The most common conditions include such things as reporting to a police, bail, or probation offi cer on a regular basis; not leav- ing the jurisdiction without permission; and not having contact with people who are alleged victims or witnesses to the offenses for which the person has been arrested. Violation of the conditions of bail is a criminal offense that may result in immediate pretrial detention and new charges.

Probation (and the related concept of conditional sentence ) is a punishment following conviction for a criminal offense, typically con- sidered more serious than community service or fi nes but less serious than imprisonment. People also may be sentenced to probation, either instead of a term of imprisonment or following (consecutive to) a term of imprisonment. The term of probation generally is fi xed, lasting from six months to several years. Probation may include conditions similar to those used for people on bail, but often the conditions are more strict and may include such things as not using alcohol or other intoxicating sub- stances or not associating with people who are known criminal offenders. Violation of the conditions of probation is a criminal offense that may result in imprisonment (i.e., serving the rest of the term of probation in custody) or new charges.

Parole is a conditional release from imprisonment intended to facili- tate an offender ’ s return and readjustment to the community. It is typically granted when the offender has served a substantial portion of a term of imprisonment with good behavior and is released from custody early as a reward. The term of parole varies greatly, from weeks to many years, depending on the length of the original sentence given to the offender. Parole is very similar to probation in terms of the conditions imposed on people. Suspected violation of the conditions of parole may result in a

c10.indd 272c10.indd 272 11/3/09 5:47:50 PM11/3/09 5:47:50 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Correctional Psychology in the United States 273

temporary return to custody, and if proved they may result in the offender serving the rest of the original sentence in custody.

The History of Correctional Psychology

Although health care and social service professionals have worked in the correctional system for more than a hundred years, the birth of correc- tional psychology probably can be dated to around World War II (Bartol & Freeman, 2005; Brodsky, 2007; Daly, 2000; Megargee, 2003). Raymond Corsini (1945), working as a correctional psychologist at that time, esti- mated that there were about 200,000 adults imprisoned in the United States (which then had a population of about 149 million) and about 100 psy- chologists delivering services to them. Many of these psychologists came together in 1953 to found the organization now known as the American Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology (AACFP). According to the organization ’ s fi rst offi cial publication, the Journal of Correctional Psychology , it had 92 members in 1956.

The decade of the 1970s was a time of special growth in correctional psychology (Bartol & Freeman, 2005; Brodsky, 2007). Membership in what is now the AACFP expanded to over 300 people. Its offi cial jour- nal was revamped and renamed Criminal Justice and Behavior . The organization developed the Standards for Psychology Services in Adult Jails and Prisons , which were published in the journal (Levinson, 1980). A new generation of “ practitioner - scholars ” — correctional psychologists who delivered services in prison but also conducted research — emerged from within its ranks.

The AACFP now has more than 400 members. But it is not the only professional organization that serves correctional psychologists. Many correctional psychologists belong to organizations such as the American Psychological Association ’ s Division 18 (Psychologists in Public Service) and Division 41 (the American Psychology - Law Society), in addition to or instead of the AACFP. Criminal Justice and Behavior is regarded interna- tionally as one of the most important and prestigious journals in the fi eld of forensic psychology.

Several factors may be responsible for the growth of correctional psy- chology (Bartol & Freeman, 2005; Brodsky, 2007). One is a tremendous increase in the prison population in the United States. Recall the statistics Corsini cited in his 1945 article, summarized above, and then compare them to contemporary statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics: Right now, more than 2.25 million people are in penitentiaries, prisons, or jails, and another 5 million are on probation or parole on any given day. Put another way, almost 1% of the entire population of the United States is incarcerated

c10.indd 273c10.indd 273 11/3/09 5:47:50 PM11/3/09 5:47:50 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

274 Correctional Psychology

in a correctional facility and almost 2% is under community supervision. And these numbers have grown steadily, at the rate of about 2% and 3% per year, over the past decade.

Another factor is that the correctional system has paid more attention to offender rehabilitation over the past 50 years. There has always been a tension in the philosophy underlying the correctional system between the ethics of control versus care . The ethic of control serves the goals of protection of public safety, retribution, and individual and general deter- rence. It emphasizes the need to ensure that offenders are detained or supervised in a safe and just manner. In contrast, the ethic of care serves rehabilitative goals. It emphasizes the need to provide offenders with the services needed to help them become law - abiding and productive mem- bers of society. Correctional psychology has tried to balance these ethics by developing effective offender assessment and treatment services. The services offered usually address common and most important risk factors for crime, such as impulsivity, antisocial attitudes, educational and voca- tional problems, substance abuse, anger, disturbed family relationships, and mental disorder. The primary goal of these programs, and the primary outcome used to evaluate their effectiveness, is reduction in recidivism rates. If a program results in fewer offenders committing new crimes, this benefi ts everyone; it is thus consistent with both control and care. Implementing good correctional treatment programs is costly, but even a small reduction in recidivism rates may result in huge economic (not to mention humanitarian!) benefi ts.

OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT

The process of identifying risk and protective factors for crime is referred to as offender risk assessment . Similarly, the process of preventing crime by infl uencing risk and protective factors is sometimes referred to as offender risk management . Offender risk assessment and management are integral to contemporary criminal justice responses to crime.

A risk is a hazard that is incompletely understood; its occurrence can be forecast only with uncertainty. The hazard we are concerned with in this chapter is crime, and crime clearly is a complex phenomenon. Criminal acts can vary greatly with respect to such things as nature, motivation, severity of consequences, and so forth. Accordingly, risk is multifaceted and cannot be conceptualized or quantifi ed simply, for example, in terms of the probability that someone will engage in crime. Instead, one must also consider the nature, seriousness, frequency or duration, and immi- nence of any future criminal conduct. Also, risk is inherently dynamic and

c10.indd 274c10.indd 274 11/3/09 5:47:50 PM11/3/09 5:47:50 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

contextual. For example, the risk posed by offenders depends on where they reside, what kinds of services they receive, their motivation to estab- lish a prosocial adjustment, whether they experience adverse life events, and so forth.

In essence, then, risk is not a characteristic of the physical world that can be evaluated objectively, but a subjective perception — something that exists not in fact, but in the eye of the beholder. These perceptions regarding the nature and degree or quantum of risk in a given case, as well as the selection of risk management strategies and tactics, are based in turn on judgments regarding the collective infl uence of myriad indi- vidual things or elements, referred to as risk factors. But what exactly is a risk factor? It is relatively easy to demonstrate using a wide range of research designs that a thing is, on average, correlated with crime. But things that are correlated with crime may be causes, features, concomi- tants, or even consequences of crime. A risk factor is a correlate that also precedes the occurrence of the hazard and, therefore, may play a causal role. Demonstrating that something is a risk factor requires longitudinal research or well - substantiated theory. Risk factors may be further subdi- vided into three types.

1. Fixed risk markers do not change status over time. 2. Variable risk markers change status over time, but these changes do

not infl uence the outcome. 3. Causal risk factors change status over time, and these changes infl u-

ence the outcome.

Differentiating among these three types of risk factors also requires lon- gitudinal designs, and ideally experimental or quasiexperimental longitu- dinal designs.

Considerable attention has been devoted to the identifi cation of important risk factors for crime. One family of theories that has proven quite useful for this purpose may be referred to as decision theories . They posit that crime is a voluntary, purposeful human behavior; or, put differently, that people engage in crime because they made a decision to do so. The decision is, in essence, a cost – benefi t analysis in which the offender perceived a situation in which engaging in crime was one potential course of action; evaluated the poten- tial benefi ts of crime and viewed it as a means of successfully achieving one or more desired goals; evaluated the potential costs of crime and found them acceptable; and then implemented plans to engage in crime. According to these theories, risk factors are things that infl uence offenders ’ decisions about crime — how and why they make decisions to engage in crime. One decision theory that is popular in correctional psychology is sometimes referred to as

Offender Risk Assessment and Management 275

c10.indd 275c10.indd 275 11/3/09 5:47:51 PM11/3/09 5:47:51 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

276 Correctional Psychology

the Psychology of Criminal Conduct (PCC) or the General Personality and Cognitive Social Learning (GPCSL) perspective (Andrews & Bonta, 2006). It focuses most heavily on offender ’ s personality, attitudes, and experiences.

Assessment is the process of gathering information for use in deci- sion making. The specifi c assessment procedures used are determined by what is being assessed and the nature of the decisions to be made. In the case of offender risk assessment, we must assess what offenders have done in the past, how they are functioning currently, and what they might do in the future. The decisions to be made are strategic in nature, including what should be done to cope with or manage the risks posed by an offender.

In sum, offender risk assessment can be defi ned as the process of evalu- ating offenders to: (1) characterize the risk that they will commit crime in the future; and (2) develop interventions to manage or reduce that risk (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2006; Hart, 2001). The task is to understand how and why an offender chose to commit crime in the past, and then to determine what could be done to discourage the person from choosing to commit crime again in the future. The specifi c procedures used to gather relevant information typically include: interviews with and observations of the person being evaluated; direct psychological or medical testing of the person; careful review of available documentary records; and interviews with collateral informants such as family members, friends, employers, and service providers.

The ultimate goal of offender risk assessment is crime prevention, or the minimization of the likelihood of and negative consequences stem- ming from any future violence. But offender assessment should achieve a number of goals in addition to the protection of public safety (Hart, 2001). A “ good ” offender risk assessment procedure should also yield reliable (i.e., consistent or replicable) results. That is, correctional psychologists should reach similar fi ndings when evaluating the same offender at about the same time. It is highly unlikely that unreliable decisions can be of any practical use. Furthermore, a good offender risk assessment procedure should be pre- scriptive; it should identify, evaluate, and prioritize the mental health, social service, and criminal justice interventions that could be used to manage an offender ’ s risk. Finally, a good offender risk assessment procedure should be open or transparent. Put another way, correctional professionals are accountable for the decisions they make, and it is therefore important for them to make explicit, as much as is possible, the basis for their opinions. A transparent offender assessment procedure allows offenders and the public a chance to scrutinize professional opinions. The transparency should protect correctional professionals when an offender commits crime despite the fact that a good risk assessment was conducted, as it can be

c10.indd 276c10.indd 276 11/3/09 5:47:51 PM11/3/09 5:47:51 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

demonstrated easily that standard or proper procedures were followed. Transparency should also protect offenders and the public by making it obvious when an improper offender risk assessment is conducted.

It is impossible for any single offender risk assessment procedure to achieve all these goals with maximum effi ciency. Similarly, it is impossible for the various parties interested in offender risk assessment (correctional psychologists, prison administrators, offenders, lawyers, judges, victims, parole board members, etc.) to reach a consensus regarding which procedure is best for all purposes and in all contexts. Instead, correctional professionals should choose the best procedure or set of procedures for a particular assess- ment of a particular offender.

Approaches to Offender Risk Assessment

Correctional psychologists use two basic approaches to reach opinions about offender risk: professional judgment and actuarial decision mak- ing. These terms refer to how information is weighted and combined to reach a fi nal decision, regardless of the information that is considered and how it was collected. The hallmark of professional judgment pro- cedures is that the evaluator exercises some degree of discretion in the decision - making process, although it is also generally the case that eval- uators have wide discretion concerning how assessment information is gathered and which information is considered. It comes as no surprise that unstructured clinical judgment is also described as “ informal, sub- jective, [and] impressionistic. ” In contrast, the hallmark of the actuarial approach is that, based on the information available to them, evaluators make an ultimate decision according to fi xed and explicit rules. It is also generally the case that actuarial decisions are based on specifi c assess- ment data, selected because they have been demonstrated empirically to be associated with violence and coded in a predetermined manner. The actuarial approach also has been described as “ mechanical ” and “ algorithmic. ”

Professional Judgment Procedures

The professional judgment approach comprises at least three different pro- cedures. The fi rst is unstructured professional judgment . This is deci- sion making in the complete absence of structure, a process that could be characterized as “ intuitive ” or “ experiential. ” Historically, it is the most commonly used procedure for assessing offender risk and, therefore, is very familiar to correctional psychologists as well as to courts and tribunals. It has the advantage of being highly adaptable and effi cient; it is possible

Offender Risk Assessment and Management 277

c10.indd 277c10.indd 277 11/3/09 5:47:51 PM11/3/09 5:47:51 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

278 Correctional Psychology

to use intuition in any context, with minimal cost in terms of time and other resources. It is also person centered, focusing on the unique aspects of the case at hand, and thus can be of great assistance in planning inter- ventions to manage offender risk. The major problem is that there is little empirical evidence that intuitive decisions are consistent across profession- als or, indeed, that they are helpful in preventing crime. As well, intuitive decisions are unimpeachable; it is diffi cult even for the people who make them to explain how they were made. This means that the credibility of the decision often rests on charismatic authority — that is, the credibility of the person who made the decision. Finally, intuitive decisions tend to be broad or general in scope, so that they become dispositional statements about the offender ( “ Offender X is a very dangerous person ” ) rather than a series of speculative statements about what the offender might do in the future assuming various release conditions.

The second professional judgment procedure is sometimes referred to as anamnestic risk assessment . ( Anamnesis is a medical term that refers to the construction of a patient ’ s history through his or her accounts or rec- ollections.) This procedure imposes a limited degree of structure on the assessment as the evaluator must, at a minimum, identify the personal and situational factors that resulted in crime in the past. The assumption here is that a series of events and circumstances, a kind of behavioral chain, led up to the offender ’ s antisocial behavior. The professional ’ s task therefore is to understand the links in this chain and suggest ways in which the chain could be broken. However, there is no empirical evidence supporting the consist- ency or usefulness of anamnestic risk assessments. Anamnestic risk assess- ment also seems to assume that history will repeat itself — that offenders are static over time, so the only thing they are at risk to do in the future is what they have done in the past. Nothing could be farther from the truth, of course; there are many different “ criminal careers. ” Some offenders will escalate in terms of the frequency or severity of crime over time, some change the types of crime they commit, and some will de - escalate or even desist altogether.

The third procedure is known as structured professional judgment . Here, decision making is assisted by guidelines that have been developed to refl ect the state of the discipline with respect to scientifi c knowledge and professional practice. Such guidelines — sometimes referred to as clini- cal guidelines , consensus guidelines , or clinical practice parameters — are quite common in medicine, although used less frequently in psychiatric and psychological assessment. The guidelines attempt to defi ne the risk being considered; discuss necessary qualifi cations for conducting an assessment; recommend what information should be considered as part of the evalua- tion and how it should be gathered; and identify a set of core risk fac- tors that, according to the scientifi c and professional literature, should be

c10.indd 278c10.indd 278 11/3/09 5:47:52 PM11/3/09 5:47:52 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

considered as part of any reasonably comprehensive assessment. Structured professional guidelines help to improve the consistency and usefulness of decisions, and certainly improve the transparency of decision making. They may, however, require considerable time or resources to develop and imple- ment. Also, some evaluators dislike this middle ground or compromise approach, either because it lacks the freedom of intuitive decision making or because it lacks the objectivity of actuarial procedures.

Actuarial Procedures

There are at least two types of actuarial decision making . The fi rst is the actuarial use of psychological tests. Classically, psychological tests are structured samples of behavior designed to measure a personal disposition; that is, an attempt to quantify an individual ’ s standing on some trait dimen- sion. Research indicates that some dispositions — such as psychopathy, major mental illness, and impulsivity — are associated with offender risk in a meaningful way. On the basis of research results, one can identify cutoff scores on the test that maximize some aspect of predictive accuracy. This procedure has several strengths, most importantly its transparency and the demonstrated consistency and utility of decisions made using tests. One major problem is that the use of psychological tests requires considerable discretion: Correctional psychologists must decide which tests are appro- priate in a given case, and judgment also may be required in test scoring and interpretation. Another problem is that reliance on a single test does not constitute a comprehensive evaluation and will provide only limited information for use in developing management strategies and tactics. More generally, the actuarial use of psychological tests focuses professional efforts on passive crime prediction rather than crime prevention .

The second type of procedure is the use of actuarial risk assessment instruments. In contrast to psychological tests, actuarial instruments are designed not to measure anything but solely to predict the future. Typically, they are constructed with great precision, optimized to predict a specifi c outcome in a specifi c population over a specifi c period of time. The items in the scale are selected either rationally (on the basis of theory or experience) or empirically (on the basis of their association with the outcome in test con- struction research). The items are weighted and combined according to some algorithm to yield a decision. In offender risk assessment, the “ decision ” generally is the estimated likelihood of future crime (e.g., arrest, charge, or conviction for a new offense) over some period of time. Like psychological tests, actuarial instruments have the advantage of transparency and direct empirical support; they also suffer many of the same weaknesses includ- ing the need for discretion in selecting a test, interpreting fi ndings, and the

Offender Risk Assessment and Management 279

c10.indd 279c10.indd 279 11/3/09 5:47:52 PM11/3/09 5:47:52 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

280 Correctional Psychology

limitations of the test fi ndings for use in planning interventions. There are additional problems with actuarial instruments that estimate the absolute likelihood or probability of recidivism. One is that they require tremendous time and effort to construct and validate. In cases when the time frame of the prediction is long, true cross - validation may require dec- ades. Also, when constructing actuarial tests there is an unavoidable trade - off between the precision of estimated recidivism rates and their gen- eralizability: The more precisely one estimates the recidivism rate of a par- ticular group or sample, the less likely it is that the estimate will accurately describe the recidivism rate of other groups or samples (and vice versa). The same statistical procedures that optimize predictive accuracy in one set- ting will decrease that test ’ s accuracy in others. Finally, it is easy to accord too much weight to information concerning the estimated likelihood of recidivism provided by actuarial tests. Most actuarial tests of offender risk yield very precise likelihood estimates, proportions with two or three deci- mal places, but they do not provide the information necessary to understand the error inherent in these estimates. When one considers the fact that many of these estimates were derived from relatively small construction samples and have not been validated in independent samples, it is clear that the actu- arial test results are only pseudoprecise. It is important for any professional who uses actuarial tests to understand and explain to others the limitations of absolute likelihood estimates of recidivism.

Example: The Level of Service - Case Management Inventory

The Level of Service - Case Management Inventory (LS - CMI) was devel- oped by a group of correctional psychologists working in Canada that included Don Andrews, James Bonta, and Steve Wormith (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2004). It is a set of structured professional judgment (SPJ) guidelines that assist the assessment and management of risk for general criminality. It is intended for use by a variety of correctional profession- als, including correctional psychologists. The original version of the test, the Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI), was published in 1982, and later renamed the Level of Service Inventory . A revised version, the LSI - R, was published in 1995. Most recently, it was revised yet again and renamed the Level of Service - Case Management Inventory , or LS - CMI, in 2004.

The LS - CMI is intended for use with male and female offenders, aged 16 and older, in institutions or the community. It comprises 11 sections that require evaluators to make a series of ratings based on a semistructured interview with the offender and a review of relevant records, then document various opinions, recommendations, and decisions (see Table 10.1 for an

c10.indd 280c10.indd 280 11/3/09 5:47:52 PM11/3/09 5:47:52 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

overview). Section 1 contains 43 items that are summed to yield an actu- arial (i.e., formulaic or algorithmic) risk/need score. This section is the core of the LS - CMI; it was in the original LSI, and the other sections were added to it over time. The items in Section 1 tap eight domains of psychosocial functioning: Criminal History, Education/Employment, Leisure/Recreation, Family/Marital, Companions, Alcohol/Drug Problems, Pro - Criminal Attitude/Orientation, and Antisocial Pattern. They were selected rationally, according to PCC and GPSCL theoretical frameworks. Sections 2 through 5 contain items that refl ect other specifi c risk, need, and responsivity factors. These items are considered less important than those in Section 1, according to theory and research, but are still potentially relevant to risk. In Sections

Table 10.1 Overview of the Level of Service-Case Management Inventory (LS-CMI)

Section Activity

1. General Risk/Need Factors Assess factors from the “Big 8” domains that are reliably associated with risk for criminality

2. Specifi c Risk/Need Factors Assess factors that are possibly associated with risk for criminality, including some related to personal adjustment and criminal history

3. Prison Experience—Institutional Factors Assess factors associated with institutional adjustment problems, including history of incar- ceration and barriers to release

4. Other Client Issues Assess other factors relevant to case man- agement, including problems related to psychological and physical health, fi nances, accommodation, and victimization

5. Special Responsivity Considerations Assess factors that should be considered when determining how best to deliver correctional services, such as supervision and treatment

6. Risk-Need Summary and Override Summarize risk-need scores and rationale for any override of classifi cation based on scores

7. Risk-Need Profi le Graphically summarize of risk-need scores

8. Program/Placement Decision Summarize decisions made about case manage- ment, including classifi cation and treatment

9. Case Management Plan Prioritize primary (criminogenic) needs, other needs, and responsivity factors

10. Progress Record Log activities and events that refl ect changes in risk, including response to correctional programming

11. Discharge Summary Summarize case information that should be reviewed if the offender returns to custody or community supervision

Source: Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith (2004).

Offender Risk Assessment and Management 281

c10.indd 281c10.indd 281 11/3/09 5:47:53 PM11/3/09 5:47:53 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

282 Correctional Psychology

6 and 7, evaluators reach fi nal opinions concerning the risks posed by the offender. First, they use cutoff scores to interpret actuarial risk/need scores. Next, they use their professional judgment to adjust or override the actuarial risk/need scores, when they think it necessary or appropriate (e.g., when a case presents with unusual circumstances). Finally, in Sections 8 through 11, evaluators recommend, implement, evaluate, and document case manage- ment strategies based on the fi ndings of Sections 1 through 7. This is done rationally or logically, rather than using an algorithm or formula.

Even from this brief description, it is clear that the LS - CMI is not a sim- ple, quantitative test. It specifi es the type of information evaluators should gather, and contains tools that evaluators can use for this purpose (e.g., a semistructured interview guide). It forces evaluators to consider a stand- ard list of risk, need, and responsivity factors identifi ed from theory and research, but it also encourages evaluators to consider factors not included in the list. Evaluators calculate actuarial risk scores, which can be interpreted with respect to various norms and cutoffs, but they are encouraged to over- ride the mechanical interpretations when appropriate. Evaluators are encour- aged to think systematically about case management, based on the test fi ndings. It is the reliance on discretion or judgment that makes the LS - CMI a form of SPJ — also known as empirically guided judgment or anchored clinical judgment — rather than a form of actuarial decision making.

The LSI and its progeny, although originally developed in Canada for use with male offenders in community settings, are now used routinely by vari- ous correctional systems around the world. It is no exaggeration to say that the LS - CMI is the “ gold standard ” for offender assessment. It is used with the entire range of offenders, including those in custody, adult females, juvenile delinquents, mentally disordered offenders (MDOs), violent offenders, and so on. Its ability to predict future criminal behavior has been confi rmed by a number of empirical evaluations. For example, according to recent meta - analyses, the average correlation between total scores on the LSI, LSI - R, or Section 1 of the LS - CMI and general recidivism among offenders on com- munity supervision is about r = .25; the average correlation with institutional infractions is about r = .15. There is also some research indicating that the LS - CMI is sensitive to changes in risk over time — that is, it can be used to measure whether an offender ’ s risk is increasing or decreasing over time.

Other Risk Assessment Instruments and Related Tests

Despite its successes, there are at least three important limitations of the LS - CMI as a risk assessment measure. First, it uses a simplistic defi nition of risk : the probability that an offender will be offi cially sanctioned for antiso- cial or criminal behavior over a given period of time. The LS - CMI can ’ t be

c10.indd 282c10.indd 282 11/3/09 5:47:53 PM11/3/09 5:47:53 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

used to forecast an offender ’ s risk for specifi c types of crime (e.g., sexual violence, intimate partner violence), or the severity of any future crime (e.g., no physical harm versus serious or life - threatening violence), or the risk dur- ing other time periods (e.g., the next 2 to 4 weeks, the next 15 years).

Second, because of its defi nition of risk, the LS - CMI ignores important risk factors for specifi c forms of antisocial behavior, such as drug crimes, child abuse and exploitation, intimate partner violence, sexual violence, stalking, gang violence, or political terrorism. In particular, it pays relatively little attention to mental disorder as a risk factor for violence. For example, paraphilic disorders such as pedophilia or sexual sadism are an important risk factor for sexual violence in some cases; delusional disorders such as erotomania may be important risk factors for stalking; and personality dis- orders such as psychopathy may be associated with a wide range of vio- lence. Serious mental disorder is certainly not rare in offender populations, but mental disorder does not play a role in PCC/GPSCL and is therefore accorded little weight in the LS - CMI.

Third, the structure of the LS - CMI still refl ects its origins. It seems best suited for assessing adult males under community supervision in urban centers in the United States or Canada. It is perhaps less appropriate for use with the most serious offenders (e.g., those incarcerated in maximum security institutions), female offenders, or offenders from ethnocultural minority backgrounds who are often overrepresented in correctional sys- tems (especially indigenous peoples, such as Aborigines in Australia; First Nations, Inuit, and M é tis in Canada; Maori in New Zealand; and American Indians in the United States).

In light of these limitations, it should come as no surprise that several other risk assessment instruments are often used in addition to or instead of the LS - CMI (see Table 10.2 ). Some of these tests are intended to assess specifi c risks. For example, correctional psychologists who work with sexual offenders may use tests such as the STATIC - 99 (Hanson & Thornton, 1999), an actuarial test developed to estimate offender ’ s risk for specifi c forms of sexual vio- lence, or special - to - purpose SPJ guidelines such as the Sexual Violence Risk - 20 (SVR - 20; Boer, Hart, Kropp, & Webster, 1997) or the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP; Hart et al., 2003). Others are intended for specifi c settings. For example, correctional psychologists who work with offenders newly admitted to jail may use management - focused SPJ guidelines such as the Jail Screening Assessment Tool (JSAT; Nicholls, Roesch, Olley, Ogloff, & Hemphill, 2005). Still others are intended for offenders with specifi c types of problems. For example, the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management - 20 (HCR - 20; Webster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997) may be used by correctional psy- chologists who work with offenders to assess offender risk, especially with offenders who may be suffering from mental health problems.

Offender Risk Assessment and Management 283

c10.indd 283c10.indd 283 11/3/09 5:47:53 PM11/3/09 5:47:53 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

284 Correctional Psychology

Table 10.2 Examples of Specialized Risk Assessment Instruments

Instrument Format Purpose Target Population

VRAG Actuarial Assessment of risk for violence Adult males with a history of vio- lence and mental health problems

HCR-20 SPJ Comprehensive assessment and man- agement of risk for institutional and community violence

Adult males and females in cor- rectional or mental health settings

SAVRY SPJ Comprehensive assessment and man- agement of risk for institutional and community violence

Adolescent males and females in correctional or mental health settings

STATIC-99 Actuarial Brief assessment of risk for sexual violence

Adult males with a history of sexual offenses

JSOAP Actuarial Brief assessment of risk for sexual violence

Adolescent males with a history of sexual offenses

SVR-20 SPJ Comprehensive assessment and man- agement of risk for sexual violence

Adult males and females

ERRASOR SPJ Comprehensive assessment and man- agement of risk for sexual violence

Adolescent males

ODARA Actuarial Assessment of risk for intimate part- ner violence

Adult males with a recent history of intimate partner violence

DA Actuarial Assessment and management of risk for life-threatening intimate partner violence

Adult males with a recent history of intimate partner violence

SARA SPJ Comprehensive assessment and man- agement of risk for intimate partner violence

Adult males and females

JSAT SPJ Comprehensive assessment and man- agement of short-term risk for institu- tional adjustment problems

Adult males and females admitted to correctional settings

START SPJ Comprehensive assessment and man- agement of short-term risk for institu- tional adjustment problems

Adult males and females admitted to mental health settings

Note: More information about these instruments can be found in Otto & Douglas, 2009.

Specialized actuarial risk assessment instruments tend to be relatively brief tests that closely resemble Section 1 of the LS - CMI, except that the content refl ects more specifi c risk factors. A good example is the STATIC - 99. It comprises 10 items, several of which refl ect prior sexual offenses (see Table 10.3 ). Evaluators rate each item based on a review of offi cial records. Item ratings are summed to yield a total score. Cutoffs are used to categorize offenders into several groups. Norms are used to estimate, for offenders in each group, the probability of charge or conviction for future sexual offenses over periods of 5 or 15 years. Although the test is relatively

c10.indd 284c10.indd 284 11/3/09 5:47:54 PM11/3/09 5:47:54 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Table 10.3 Risk Factors in the STATIC-99

Item Content Coding

1. Young Under age 25? 0 = No 1 = Yes

2. Single Ever lived with lover for at least two years?

0 = Yes 1 = No

3. Index Nonsexual Violence Any convictions? 0 = No 1 = Yes

4. Prior Nonsexual Violence Any prior convictions? 0 = No 1 = Yes

5. Prior Sex Offenses Number of prior charges or convictions?

0 = 0 charges/0 convictions 1 = 1–2 charges/1 conviction 2 = 3–5 charges/2–3 convictions 3 = 6+ charges/4+ convictions

6. Prior Sentencing Dates Number of prior sentences? 0 = 3 or fewer 1 = 4 or more

7. Noncontact Sex Offenses Any convictions? 0 = No 1 = Yes

8. Unrelated Victims Any unrelated victims? 0 = No 1 = Yes

9. Stranger Victims Any stranger victims? 0 = No 1 = Yes

10. Male Victims Any male victims? 0 = No 1 = Yes

Total Sum of item scores 0–1 = Low 2–3 = Moderate-Low 4–5 = Moderate-High 6+ = High

Source: Accessed July 24, 2009 at http://www.static99.org.

simple, it now has a lengthy manual that contains detailed administration instructions (Harris, Phenix, Hanson, & Thornton, 2003). The STATIC - 99 is not intended as a stand - alone test, because it focuses on a small number of historical factors; the test authors recommend consideration of dynamic factors to ensure a comprehensive assessment, and have developed addi- tional instruments for this purpose.

In contrast, specialized SPJ guidelines tend to be longer, more com- prehensive, and management focused. In this respect, they resemble the full LS - CMI. A good example here is the RSVP. Its administration proc- ess comprises six steps. In Step 1, evaluators gather relevant informa- tion. In Step 2, they consider the presence of 22 standard risk factors (see Table 10.4 ), as well as any other case - specifi c risk factors. In Step

Offender Risk Assessment and Management 285

c10.indd 285c10.indd 285 11/3/09 5:47:54 PM11/3/09 5:47:54 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

286 Correctional Psychology

3, they consider the relevance of each factor with respect to risk for sex- ual violence. In Step 4, they consider risk scenarios — that is, speculate about the possible nature, severity, imminence, frequency, and likeli- hood of any future sexual violence. In Step 5, they develop risk manage- ment strategies based on relevant risk factors and risk scenarios. Finally, in Step 6, they make a number of conclusory opinions. The manual is relatively long (although only about half the length of the STATIC - 99 manual, in terms of word count).

Specialized risk assessment instruments such as those in Table 10.2 are used frequently in correctional systems. Research indicates they are about as successful for their specialized purpose (e.g., assessing risk for intimate

Table 10.4 Risk Factors in the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP)

Domain Risk Factor

Sexual Violence History 1. Chronicity of sexual violence

2. Diversity of sexual violence

3. Escalation of sexual violence

4. Physical coercion in sexual violence

5. Psychological coercion in sexual violence

Psychological Adjustment 6. Extreme minimization or denial of sexual violence

7. Attitudes that support or condone sexual violence

8. Problems with self-awareness

9. Problems with stress or coping

10. Problems resulting from child abuse

Mental Disorder 11. Sexual deviance

12. Psychopathic personality disorder

13. Major mental illness

14. Problems with substance use

15. Violent or suicidal ideation

Social Adjustment 16. Problems with intimate relationships

17. Problems with nonintimate relationships

18. Problems with employment

19. Nonsexual criminality

Manageability 20. Problems with planning

21. Problems with treatment

22. Problems with supervision

c10.indd 286c10.indd 286 11/3/09 5:47:55 PM11/3/09 5:47:55 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

partner violence) as the LS - CMI is for assessing and managing risk for general criminality. They also provide more detailed information that may be useful for making risk management decisions.

Correctional psychologists also have developed tests that are used to assess specifi c risk factors or aspects of risk. One example is the Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised (PCL - R; Hare, 1991, 2003). The PCL - R was developed to assess symptoms of psychopathic personality dis- order, which subsequent research indicated is a robust risk factor for several forms of serious and violent crime. The PCL - R is used in many correctional systems around the world as part of comprehensive offender risk assessments, and it is also used as part of other actuarial and SPJ risk assessment instruments such as the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998, 2006), the HCR - 20 (Webster et al., 1997), and the SVR - 20 (Boer, Hart, Kropp, & Webster, 1997). Other tests have been designed to tap an offender ’ s self - reports related to several aspects of risk. Although research indicates that these tests are predictive of future criminality, their primary utility is as one part of a more comprehensive risk assessment.

Strategies for Offender Risk Management

Risk management activities can be divided into four basic categories: mon- itoring, treatment, supervision, and victim safety planning.

Monitoring , or repeated assessment, is always a part of good risk man- agement. The goal of monitoring is to evaluate changes in risk over time so that risk management strategies and tactics can be revised as appropriate. Monitoring, unlike supervision, focuses on surveillance rather than control or restriction of liberties; it is therefore minimally intrusive. Monitoring tactics may include contacts with the offender, as well as with potential victims and other relevant people (e.g., therapists, correctional offi cers, family members, coworkers) in the form of face - to - face or telephonic meetings. Where appropriate, they may also include fi eld visits (e.g., at home or work), electronic surveillance, polygraphic interviews, drug test- ing (urine, blood, or hair analysis), and inspection of mail or telecommuni- cations (telephone records, fax logs, e-mail, etc.).

Treatment involves the provision of (re - )habilitative services. The goal of treatment is to improve an offender ’ s psychosocial adjustment. Treatments may include training programs designed to improve inter- personal, anger management, and vocational skills; psychoeducational programs designed to change attitudes toward crime; individual or group psychotherapy; chemical dependency programs; and psychoactive medica- tions, such as antipsychotics or mood stabilizers.

Offender Risk Assessment and Management 287

c10.indd 287c10.indd 287 11/3/09 5:47:55 PM11/3/09 5:47:55 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

288 Correctional Psychology

Supervision involves the restriction of the offender ’ s rights or freedoms. The goal of supervision is to make it (more) diffi cult for the offender to engage in further violence. An extreme form of supervision is incapacita- tion, that is, involuntary institutionalization of the offender in a correctional or health care facility. Incapacitation clearly is an effective means of reducing the offender ’ s access to potential victims. It is, however, by no means per- fectly effective: The offender may escape from the institution or even commit crimes while institutionalized. Incapacitation also has other disadvantages: It is expensive; it restricts accessibility to treatment services; and it may pro- mote the development of antisocial attitudes by increasing contact with antiso- cial peers and by creating a sense of powerlessness or frustration. Community supervision is much more common than institutionalization. Typically, it involves allowing the offender to reside in the community with restrictions on activity, movement, association, and communication. Restrictions on activity may include requirements to attend vocational or educational programs, not to use alcohol or drugs, and so on. Restrictions on movement may include house arrest, travel bans, “ no go ” orders (i.e., orders not to visit specifi c geo- graphic areas), and travel only with identifi ed chaperones. Restrictions on association may include orders not to socialize or communicate with specifi c people or groups of people who may encourage antisocial acts or with past or potential victims.

Victim safety planning involves improving the security resources of potential victims, a process sometimes referred to as target hardening . The goal is to ensure that, if crime recurs — despite all monitoring, treatment, and supervision efforts — any negative impact on the victims ’ psychological and physical well - being is minimized. Victim safety planning is most relevant in situations that involve “ targeted violence. ”

An Integrated Approach to Offender Management: The Risk - Need - Responsivity (RNR) Model

Over the past 20 years, what has come to be known as the Risk - Need - Responsivity (RNR) model has emerged as the dominant approach to offender treatment in correctional psychology. It was developed by the same people responsible for the LS - CMI, together with colleagues such as Paul Gendreau, Robert Hoge, and Robert Ross (e.g., Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990; Gendreau & Ross, 1979).

The RNR model comprises three core principles, derived from research on correctional treatment and interpreted within the broader framework of PCC/ GPCSL theory. According to the risk principle , the level of services deliv- ered to offenders should be commensurate with the risks they pose to reof- fend. This means offenders at high risk for recidivism should receive more

c10.indd 288c10.indd 288 11/3/09 5:47:55 PM11/3/09 5:47:55 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

intensive assessment and management, relative to offenders at moderate or low risk. According to the need principle , offender assessment and manage- ment should focus on criminogenic (crime - causing) needs. This means serv- ices for offenders should target causal risk factors for antisocial behavior that have been validated by empirical research. According to the responsivity principle , services should be delivered that maximize their effectiveness. This means two things. First, in general terms, the focus of management programs should be on skills acquisition and enhancement through prosocial modeling, the appropriate use of reinforcement and disapproval, and prob- lem solving, because research suggests this is the most effi cient and effective way to change people ’ s behavior. Second, more specifi cally, it means that the management programs delivered to offenders should match their individ- ual learning styles, motivations, abilities, and strengths.

Development of the RNR model was motivated by the rather unhappy state of the research literature on the effectiveness of correctional treat- ment that existed in the 1970s. At that time, there was no good evidence that correctional treatment reduced recidivism rates in offenders, or even that it made offenders feel much better. Systematic reviews of the research literature concluded that correctional treatment was largely ineffective — or, in the words of Robert Martinson, that “ nothing works ” with respect to offender treatment (Martinson, 1974).

Andrews, Bonta, and colleagues rejected the Martinson verdict. They argued that the correctional treatments reviewed by Martinson should not be lumped together, due to their heterogeneity. They conducted their own reviews and found treatment programs that reported positive fi nd- ings tended to have some important similarities (Bonta & Andrews, 2007; Wormith et al., 2007). For example, effective programs:

targeted high - risk rather than low - risk offenders; focused on concrete goals such as changing criminal behavior rather than improving self - esteem; relied on structured or skills - focused interventions rather than unstruc- tured or psychotherapeutic interventions; and were often delivered to groups rather than individuals.

Based on these fi ndings, they formalized the RNR principles. Their conclusion is that the effectiveness of a correctional treatment depends directly on its consistency with RNR principles. For example, in a recent study (Bonta & Andrews, 2007), residential and community - based offender treatment programs were reviewed and scored according to the number of RNR core principles to which they adhered (0 = no adherence, 3 = complete adherence). The effectiveness of each treatment program was

• •

•

Offender Risk Assessment and Management 289

c10.indd 289c10.indd 289 11/3/09 5:47:56 PM11/3/09 5:47:56 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

290 Correctional Psychology

indexed using r as an effect size measure. The mean effectiveness was calculated for each adherence score. Institutional and community programs with adherence scores of 3 (i.e., adherence to all RNR core principles) had effect sizes of .17 and .35; this corresponds to reduction in recidivism rates of roughly 17 and 35 percentage points, respectively, for treated versus untreated offenders. In contrast, the effect size for adherence scores of 0 (adherence to no RNR core principles) were actu- ally negative: − .10 for institutional programs and − .02 for community programs. Treatment programs that ignored RNR principles were either ineffective or may have actually increased recidivism rates by up to 10%. (See Figure 10.1 .)

The RNR approach has had some positive impacts on correctional psy- chology. First, and perhaps most important, it replaced the nihilistic dogma that “ Nothing works! ” with a more constructive question, “ What works? ” This promoted the development of systematic, evidence - based offender treatment programs. Second, it highlighted the need for routine evalua- tion of treatment programs, which led to a great increase in high - quality empirical research. Third, in combination with the underlying PCC or GPSCL theoretical framework, it helped correctional psychologists practice in a rational and reasonable manner, and especially balance the confl icting ethics of control and care. It is an excellent conceptual tool for guiding the development and delivery of psychological services in corrections.

0 1 2 3

Number of Principles Adhered To

�10

�20

R ed

uc ti

on i

n R

ec id

iv is

Residential Community

Figure 10.1 Reduction in Recidivism Rates as a Function of Adherence to Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Principles in Residential and Community Correctional Treatment Programs

c10.indd 290c10.indd 290 11/3/09 5:47:56 PM11/3/09 5:47:56 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

But the approach also has its limitations. Tony Ward and colleagues (Ward, 2002; Ward & Brown, 2004; Whitehead, Ward, & Collie, 2007) have pointed out that although the RNR approach has good research sup- port, most of it has come from research focusing on male offenders with a history of general criminality and without serious mental health problems. There is relatively little research examining the utility of RNR with respect to more specifi c offender populations, including females, offenders suffer- ing from major mental illnesses, and serious violent offenders. With respect to theory, Ward and colleagues argued that the RNR approach focuses too much on reducing recidivism — encouraging offenders not to commit crime, but without giving them enough help to develop prosocial alternatives to crime. This limits the potential impact of correctional programs by fail- ing to maximize treatment engagement or motivation. In essence, this latter argument is that RNR values the ethic of control more than the ethic of care.

As an alternative, Ward and colleagues developed the Good Lives (GL) model. GL focuses on promoting the important personal goals of offenders, while at the same time reducing and managing their risk for future crime. The basic idea is by helping people fulfi ll their basic human needs and desires — what the GL model calls “ primary goods ” — treatment naturally discourages or minimizes involvement in crime. According to GL, primary goods are “ activities, experiences, or situations that are sought for their own sake and that benefi t individuals and increase their sense of fulfi llment and happiness ” (Whitehead et al., 2007, p. 580), including such things as relat- edness, autonomy, knowledge, mastery, play, and physical health. Problems arise when the strategies can ’ t obtain primary goods. Such problems typi- cally take four forms: neglect of important primary goods; use of ineffec- tive strategies to secure goods; confl ict of strategies to secure goods; and inability to implement strategies for securing goods.

RNR and GL are similar in many respects, as proponents of both approaches acknowledge. In theory, GL may be seen as an expansion of RNR to include some factors deemed noncriminogenic needs by the lat- ter but primary human goods by the former. In practice, the major differ- ences between them are that, compared to RNR, GL treatment: (1) deals more explicitly with the goals and values of offenders; and, (2) includes a focus on the process by which offenders attempt to construct meaning in their lives.

Example: Reasoning and Rehabilitation - Revised Program

The Reasoning and Rehabilitation - Revised Program, formerly known as Cognitive Skills Training Program, was developed concurrent with RNR

Offender Risk Assessment and Management 291

c10.indd 291c10.indd 291 11/3/09 5:47:57 PM11/3/09 5:47:57 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

292 Correctional Psychology

principles (see Andrews & Bonta, 2006). Its goal is to prevent general criminality. It was the fi rst offender treatment program to be implemented nationally in Canada, and subsequently has been implemented in correc- tional systems in the United States as well as countries such as Australia, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

The program is a cognitive - behavioral treatment designed to train offenders in skills that address a wide range of problems commonly associated with criminal behavior, such as poor planning and decision - making skills, defi cits in empathy and perspective taking, attitudes and beliefs that condone criminal behavior, association with peers who lead a criminal lifestyle, and so on. It was developed for use with adult male offenders who are at moderate to high risk for general criminality. It is delivered in small - group format (usually 8 to 10 participants) in class- room settings, either in institutions or in the community. The assess- ment and treatment procedures are highly structured, set out in detailed manuals. The standard curriculum comprises about four individual ses- sions in which the evaluator assesses the offender using motivational interviewing techniques, followed by 35 to 40 treatment sessions of two to three hours duration delivered over 8 to 12 weeks. The overall goal of treatment is to teach offenders to think before they act by provid- ing them with more effective skills to anticipate problems and plan their reactions, solve problems, and consider other people ’ s points of view. Specifi c topics covered in treatment include interpersonal problem solv- ing, self - control and self - management, assertiveness and social interac- tion, social perspective taking, critical reasoning, and values reasoning. Treatment delivery is designed to maximize the motivation and partici- pation of offenders.

Research has shown that offenders who participate in the Reasoning and Rehabilitation - Revised Program improve on measures of skill devel- opment. For example, a recent evaluation in Sweden examined the effec- tiveness of treated offenders compared to matched controls over a period of fi ve years. Of offenders who started treatment, 77% completed suc- cessfully. According to various questionnaires completed at the end of treatment, treated offenders exhibited signifi cant improvements with respect to such things as impulsivity and prosocial attitudes. A follow - up of offenders subsequently released indicated that offenders who completed treatment had a 48% reconviction rate, compared to 60% for untreated offenders and 73% for dropouts.

Findings such as these give reason for optimism, but it is important to note some important limitations of the Reasoning and Rehabilitation - Revised Program. First, the dropout rate is too high: About 1 of 4 offend- ers do not complete treatment. More must be done to build and maintain

c10.indd 292c10.indd 292 11/3/09 5:47:57 PM11/3/09 5:47:57 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

offender motivation. Second, the reconviction rate is too high, even among offenders who complete treatment: About 1 in 2 reoffend within 2 to 5 years. Third, evaluations rely too heavily on quasiexperimental designs, rather than randomized trials. Fourth, the program is targeted at general criminality, rather than specifi c forms of offending. Its effectiveness with, say, intimate partner violence or sexual offenders is unknown. Finally, the active process (i.e., mechanism of change) underlying treatment is not clear. According to theory, it works by changing the thinking styles of offend- ers — increasing prosocial attitudes, decreasing impulsivity, and so forth. But there is not good research support for this assumption; indeed, some evaluations have found that offenders who report greater attitude change have higher reconviction rates than those who report less attitude change.

Other Offender Treatment Programs

To address risk for general criminality, some correctional systems also offer programs to enhance life skills in such areas as employment, edu- cation, anger management, parenting, and leisure activities. To address more specifi c forms of criminality, some offer programs for sexual vio- lence, family violence, or other violence. To address mental health prob- lems related to risk for general or violent criminality, some offer programs for offenders with substance use problems, acute mental illness, intellec- tual defi cits, or personality disorder. Many of these programs are modeled closely after the Reasoning and Rehabilitation - Revised Program in terms of format and structure.

Evaluations of these treatment programs have yielded generally positive fi ndings, insofar as they are often associated with short - term improvements in attitudes, adjustment, and skills, and sometimes with long - term reduc- tions in recidivism rates. But these evaluations also have found evidence of the same problems that have plagued the Reasoning and Rehabilitation - Revised Program: high attrition (dropout) rates, typically in the range of 30% to 60%; high recidivism rates, even among offenders who success- fully complete treatment; lack of high - quality evaluations, in the form of randomized controlled trials; and lack of research on mechanisms of change. For example, systematic reviews of the effectiveness of sex offender treatment programs include scores of studies, but only a few of these are randomized controlled trials. Although there is evidence that suc- cessful treatment on average reduces the rate of sex offense recidivism by about one - quarter to one - third, the results of randomized controlled trials indicated the reduction in recidivism associated with treatment was very small or even nonexistent. The same pattern of fi ndings is evident in evalu- ations of intimate partner violence treatment programs.

Offender Risk Assessment and Management 293

c10.indd 293c10.indd 293 11/3/09 5:47:58 PM11/3/09 5:47:58 PM

EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

294 Correctional Psychology

SUMMARY

The corrections system in the United States is highly complex in nature, responsible for managing offenders in both institutions and the community. The corrections system has grown dramatically over the past 50 years and increasingly has taken responsibility for not just supervising but also reha- bilitating offenders. Correctional psychology has grown and evolved along with the system is services. Correctional psychologists have made important contributions to the development, implementation, and evaluation of a wide range of theory - grounded and evidence - based offender risk assess- ment procedures and offender risk management programs. Their work is critical to improving the lives of offenders while protecting and enhancing public safety.