Forensic assesment and rehabilitation

Why do we study criminal behaviour

• The study of offenders highlights risk factors of offending behaviour

• Identification of risk factors is important for understanding criminal behaviour

• Also provides valuable information for the practical assesment and treatment of offenders

What are the different principles of effective practice (Andrews and Bonta, 2007)

• Risk principle, offenders should be assigned to treatment in accordance to their risk level

• Need principle, problematic areas of an offenders life need to be addressed

• Responsivity principle, interventions should be delivered in a style which matches the learning styles of the offender

Criminogenic needs vs non criminogenic needs

• Criminogenic, dynamic factors that contribute to criminal behaviour, when addressed may reduce the likelihood of reoffending

• Non criminogenic, factors that do not directly influence criminal behaviour but may still affect overall wellbeing

How does assesment involve prediction

• Involves the calculation of likelihood eg the probability an event will happen in the future and how much intervention the individual will need

• ‘To assess risk is to try and predict the future’ (Hollin, 2002)

• Prediction however is not an exact science so the aim is to minimize false positives and false negatives

What is clinical prediction- a method of risk assesment

• An ‘informal’ subjective conclusion reached by a human clinical judgement (Grove and Meehl, 1996)

• Can also utilise static and dynamic factors

• Draws on experience/expertise of the clinician

What is actuarial prediction- a method of risk assesment

• Derived from statistical analysis

• Large scale research, risk factors are weighed and an algorithm is derived

• Static factors and dynamic factors utilized

Difference between static and dynamic factors

• Static, do not change over time

• Dynamic, theoretically changeable and things that can be changed through intervention

What is an example of actuarial prediction

• Offender group re conviction scale (OGRS)

• Variables used as predictors in this scale:

• Age

• Gender

• Current offence group

• The copas rate, rate of convinction

• Sanctioning history, have they been to prison before?

• This data is plugged into an algorithm and brings out a % which is the likelihood of the individual re offending again

What is structured clinical judgement

A combination of actuarial and clinical methods to increase predictive ability

What is an example of structured clinical judgement

• The offender assesment system (OASys)

• Looks at offending history and the current offence

• Social and economic factors are considered eg education, access to accommodation, training and financial management

• Personal factors considered include thinking and behaviour, attitude towards offending and supervision

• Useful as we gather alot of information to be able to help the individual

What are risk assessments used for

• Informing sentencing

• Informing sentence planning, next steps once convicted

• Informing security decisions

• Deciding eligibility for interventions, certain criteria for who should be on certain risk interventions

• Research

What is a needs assessment

• Assessment is not only about risk

• Risk factors not only indicate increased riskiness but also increased need

• When need is linked to crime, eg is criminogenic, intervention is required to reduce the likelihood of reoffending

• Risk factors then become treatment targets

Needs assesment (Lowenkamp and Smith, 2004)

• A study that looked at ‘creative sentences’ that judges are coming up with around the country (USA)

• The idea that if you intervene in the following ways, they may reduce reoffend, ideas include:

• Yoga

• Writing ‘i will not do stupid things’ 2500 times

• Dressing up like a victim (in a dress) and being forced to walk around downtown

• Listening to music or reading

• Jogging for an hour for trying to run from the police

• Subjective as these ideas may not necessarily succeed in intervening but all dependent on the individuals criminogenic needs

Needs assesment, change in reductivism rates (Gendreau , French and Taylor, 2002)

• When 1-3 criminogenic needs were targeted, there was no change in reductivism rates

• When 4-6 criminogenic needs were targeted, there was a large increase in reductivism rates

What are the 2 distinct areas of research that fed into development of cognitive skills programmes

• Research into cognitive functioning of offenders

• Offenders have distinct thinking styles eg tend to be more impulsive (Ross and Fabiano, 1985)

• Meta analytic research

• Remarkably consistent findings, findings are condensed into the risk- need- responsivity model and the correctional services accreditation criteria

What is the accreditation criteria

• Criteria widely used to judge the quality and effectiveness of correctional and rehabilitation programs:

• Programs must be based within a clear model of change

• Should have a clear justified selection criteria for selection of offenders

• Should use effective methods of change

• Should be designed to attend motivation and engagement issues

Treatment effect of criminogenic outcomes

• Findings from meta analyses, overall effect showed a 10% reduction (Lipsey, 1995)

• But there was a large variability of effects for low effect treatment

High effect treatment effects- criminogenic outcomes

• If you target high risk people, there is a higher impact

• Target the offenders thoughts, feelings and behaviour

• Adopt a structured approach

• Take place in a community rather than residential settings

• Maintain high programme integrity

What does treatment look like?

• Usually group based, 8-12 offenders

• Usually delivered by 2-3 trained facilitators,

• Formed of manualised programmes, specific exercises to complete in a specified order

• Exercises are built on each other to aid skills of acquisition and ensure individuals dont just learn these ideas but are able to use them in real situations

General offending behaviour programmes vs offence specific programmes

• General offending, target broad criminogenic needs eg poor emotional regulation

• Offence specific programmes, target factors directly related to a particular type of crime eg sexual offending

Example of how treatment will work

• The aim of treatment is to target thoughts, feelings and actions

• Eg male violent offenders might see violence as being part of a man

• The programme will challenge and change their thinking beliefs ‘cognitive restructuring’

• Male violent offenders may also have poor problem solving skills, the programme will target problem solving skills training

• Male violent offenders may have problems with anger control, the programme will target anger management and impulse control training

Effectiveness of interventions

• Financial importance, running programmes is expensive therefore if not effective, can affect staff salaries, training and accreditation costs

• Ineffective interventions may lead to more crime and arrests

• Ethically problematic to offer interventions that do not help, harm or waste participants time

• Interventions also typically operate in a highly political environment therefore their effectiveness influences public confidence in the justice system and policy decisions

Evaluation of interventions

• Many issues can influence the results of evaluations

• The research design used to evaluate a programme strongly affects the findings eg methodological issues such as no random assignment and no selection bias

• Delivery of treatment also affects effectiveness

• Who participates in a programme can also significantly influence evaluation results eg higher risk offenders benefit more from intensive treatment

Outcome research- UK probation (Hollin et al, 2008)

• 4935 community based offenders

• Treatment group- 2,186 offenders

• Participated in CBT programmes including:

• Think first, a general offending behaviour focusing on cognitive skills eg problem solving

• Enhanced thinking skills, CBT based programmes aimed at developing self control

• Reasoning and rehab, programme emphasizing self control and prosocial reasoning

• Hollin et al used a ‘census point’ meaning they chose a specific follow up date and checked whether each offender had been reconvincted

Outcome research- UK probation findings (Hollin et al, 2008)

• Across the entire sample, 65.6% were re convicted by the census date

• Out of the treatment group, 66.64% were reconvincted

• These were unadjusted reconviction rates meaning these numbers are raw percentages and do not take into account differences such as risk level, age and offence type

Completion, non completion and non starting rates (Hollin et al, 2008)

• Found that only 28.2% of the offenders who were supposed to be in treatment actually finished the programme

• 23.2% started but failed to complete the programme (non completers)

• 48.5% did not even start (non starters)

• Showed that for Think first, R&R and enhanced thinking skills, non starters were the largest group and completers the smallest group

Re conviction rates for different subroutes (Hollin et al, 2008)

• When offenders complete accredited programmes, their reconviction rates drop dramatically

• Completers- 39.8% re convicted

• Comparison group, 64.8% re convicted, these offenders did not receive any accredited programme

• Suggests to no treatment controls, there is a positive effect on reconviction of program completion but a higher rate of reconviction for program non completers

Do accredited programmes in prisons reduce reoffending? (Friendship et al,2002)

• Programmes such as enhanced thinking skills and R&R were introduced to reduce reoffending however initial studies did not agree

• Friendship et al compared a treatment group to a matched comparison group (offenders who did not receive the programmes)

• 14% reduction in reconviction for low medium risk offenders

• 11% reduction for medium high risk offenders

• Estimated 21,000 crimes prevented

Do accredited programmes in prisons reduce reoffending? (Falshaw et al, Cann et al 2003)

• Did not find significant reductions in reoffending and could not replicate the success by friendship et al

• Found minimal or no difference between treated and untreated groups

• Cann et al found the ‘completion effect’, the fact that completing the programme matters

• 2.6% reduction in reconviction for adult completers and 3.6% reduction in reconviction for young offender completers

Outcome research, UK prisons (Sadlier et al, 2010)

• Evaluated prison based ETS, 257 starters between 2006 and 2008

• Compared to a matched comparison group, similiar to offenders who did not start ETS

• Found lower reconviction rates, 27.2% of ETS participants were re convicted

• 33.5% of the comparison group were re convicted

• Therefore ETS participants were less likely to reoffend

• Among those who did reoffend, ETS offenders committed fewer offences overall, roughly 60 fewer per 100 prisoners

• It did not significantly change how serious those offences were

Outcome research, UK prisons (Travers and colleagues, 2013 study)

• Compared ETS treatment groups with a cohort of similiar prisoners

• Compared predicted and actual reconviction rates over two years

• Aimed to assess the effectiveness of ETS as well as different risk levels and different offence type

Outcome research, UK prisons (Travers and colleagues, 2013 findings)

• ETS attendees re convicted at 6.4% less than the comparison group and 9.5% less than predicted by OGRS

• Programme completers were re convicted at 7.5% less than the comparison group

• Overall significant reduction, compared to comparison group in all but the very highest risk band (OGRS 91+)

Threats to efficacy of intervention

• Responsivity, how well the programme matches the offenders learning style and motivation

• High attrition (drop out) is common due to several reasons eg loss of motivation or transfer between prisoners

• Inappropriate allocation of offenders, sometimes offenders are put into the wrong programme eg low risk offenders are placed into intensive programmes

• Lack of programme integrity, delivering the programme exactly as designed

Characteristics of non completers

• Typically younger

• Higher risk of re conviction

• Greater criminal history

• Negative attitude to programmes

• Lower levels of education and literacy

• Low engagement and slow progress through the programme

Non completion/lack of engagement study (Hatcher et al)

• Non completion effect, evidence that non completers perform worse than appropriate comparison groups

• Non completers were divided into 5 equal sized groups based on how much of the programme they completed

• They were compared with a comparison group and completers

Non completion/lack of engagement findings (Hatcher et al)

• Suggests the quintile 1 is often the worse and has the highest re offending rate

• This is due to them completing the smallest amount of the programme

• Completers show the lowest re offending rate

Inappropriate allocation of offenders (Palmer et al, 2008)

• Accredited programmes have strict eligibility and suitability criteria,

• Usually based on risk level, criminogenic needs and motivation/ability to participate

• Found that 8.41% of participants were too low risk and did not need the programme and 39.62% were too high risk

• Nearly half of all allocations were inappropiate

• Study found that low risk offenders were more likely to complete the programme

• High risk offenders are more likely to drop out

• Inappropriate allocation damages programme effectiveness

Responsivity- women offenders

• Many programmes are designed for male offenders

• They are sometimes used with female offenders with little, if any, adaptions

• There is evidence that women offenders have ‘gender specific’ needs regarding mental health problems, substance and victimisation abuse

Palmer et al 2015, women offenders

• Compared 3 groups of women offenders, completers, non completers and comparison

• Main measure was the reconviction rate, around 46.7% of completers re convicted

• 60% of non completers re convicted

• Women who did not participate had the lowest re conviction rate

• Shows that intervention programmes may not be suitable or effective for women

What is programme integrity

• When the programme is delivered as intended

• Focuses on the content of the session

• Programmes must be appropriately resourced, staff appropriately trained and offenders appropriately selected

Different types of programme integrity

• Programme drift, gradual change over time in aims and practice of the programme

• Programme reversal, active resistance by practitioners to oppose/undermine the programme

• Programme non compliance, practitioners decide to change the programme eg add sessions, use different techniques

What is treatment readiness

The idea that an offender will only benefit from a programme if they are ready,able and willing to take part

What is the MORM definition of treatment readiness (Ward, Day and Howells 2004)

• “The presence of characteristics (states or dispositions) within either the client or the therapeutic situation that are likely to promote engagement in therapy and enhance therapeutic change.”

• Within the client, things inside the person that make them ready for treatment eg cognitive beliefs and behavioural skills/competencies

• Within the situation, things about the programme or the environment eg location of prison or community, availability of therapy.