Responsivity and Offender Rehabilitation

by Arden Thurber

Research in Brief:
- Offender motivation for treatment as a responsivity factor
  - by Lynn Stewart and William A. Millson
- Factors influencing the outcome of offender substance abuse treatment
  - by John R. Weekes, William A. Millson and Lynn O. Lightfoot
- The impact of time served and custody level on offender attitudes
  - by Dennis J. Stevens
- Correctional work supervisor leadership and credibility: Their influence on offender work motivation
  - by Christa Gillis, Maury Getkate, David Robinson and Frank Porporino
- The learning modes of an incarcerated population
  - by Eva Fisher-Bloom
- Treatment responsivity in criminal psychopaths
  - by Ralph Serin
- Forensic mental health treatment: Do we really know what we are talking about?
  - by Anthony Greenwood
- Treating intellectually disabled sex offenders
  - by Douglas P. Boer, John Dorward, Claudine M. Gauthier and David R. Watson

The responsivity principle and offender rehabilitation
- by James Bonta
  - Researchers began to question the effectiveness of correctional programs in reducing recidivism in the mid-1970s.
  - Many believed that offender treatment simply did not "work," prompting pro-rehabilitationists to explore "what works" with offenders.
  - Developed clearer theoretical understanding of effective treatment.
- Treatment effectiveness depends on matching types of treatment and therapists to types of offenders.
  - Responsivity Principle: Offender characteristics affect responses to therapists or treatments.
    - Assumes individuals are not the same, with variations in intelligence, communication style, and emotionality influencing responses to behavioral change efforts.

Why Consider Responsivity Factors?
- Clinicians and correctional staff recognize the need for different strategies for different offenders.
- A growing body of literature shows that staff characteristics and treatment types can have varying effects on offenders.
  - Staff Characteristics:
    - Staff identify differences among themselves, such as confidence and impulsivity.
    - Interaction styles vary, with some preferring direct contact while others enforce rules passively.
    - Socially skilled, empathic staff are more effective in engaging offenders.
    - Research links certain staff characteristics (e.g., interpersonal sensitivity) to positive outcomes, marking lower recidivism rates among their clients.

Types of Treatment
- Structured cognitive-behavioral therapy is more effective than non-behavioral relationship-oriented approaches (see Figure 1 for treatment effectiveness comparison).
- When therapists possess warmth and interpersonal skills, the treatment effectiveness increases.

General Client Responsivity Factors (Table 1):
- Common in General Population:
  - Anxiety
  - Self-esteem
- More Common in Offenders:
  - Poor social skills
  - Inadequate problem-solving skills
  - Concrete-oriented thinking
  - Depression
  - Mental illness
  - Poor verbal skills
  - Age
  - Gender
  - Race/Ethnicity
- Average Effect of Treatment Types in Reducing Recidivism (Phi):
  - Non-behavioral: 0.29
  - Behavioral: 0.30
  - Treatment types should correspond to the cognitive capabilities of the offender, especially when setting behavioral goals and clear assignments.

Understanding Risk Factors:
- Characteristics predicting future criminal behavior include a history of prior convictions.
  - Criminogenic Needs: Dynamic risk indicators that, when addressed, should reduce criminal conduct (e.g., substance abuse).
  - Non-Criminogenic Needs: Changeable but less influential on criminal behavior (e.g., self-esteem).
- Interactions between Responsivity and Risks/Needs:
  - Responsivity factors are individual attributes affecting treatment goal achievements but are not direct treatment targets.
  - Example: Groups classified as “amenable” (bright, verbal, anxious) before treatment showed no classification relation to parole failures.
  - Research found nonamenable offenders may show negative treatment effects, specifically in psychodynamic casework.

Some programs succeed due to matching treatment intensity with offender risk levels and targeting criminogenic needs.
Acknowledging client responsivity factors can further enhance treatment effectiveness by tailoring approaches.
Certain responsivity factors (e.g., anxiety or shyness) must be considered, as they can impact those targeted for criminogenic needs.

Requires systematic assessments of responsivity, focusing on potential areas such as gender and race impacts, therapy approaches to enhance motivation, and distinct mental health indicators.
The pursuit of understanding responsivity will provide valuable insights for future offender programming and treatment modalities.