Upload
virgil-green
View
218
Download
4
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Practical Significance of a Psychology of Criminal Conduct
James BontaPublic Safety Canada
Dutch Probation Service & University of Applied SciencesUtrecht, the NetherlandsMay 2009
Outline of the Presentation
1. The General Policy Debate – getting the right balance of punishment and treatment
2. Theoretical Perspectives of Crime – forensic mental health and a Psychology of Criminal Conduct (GPCSL)
3. Psychology (GPCSL) – making a difference
House of wax reviewsHouse of wax reviews
Excerpt From First Hit
““This is by far one of the best movies This is by far one of the best movies that I have seen. I saw it with my that I have seen. I saw it with my friends and they liked it too. One friends and they liked it too. One thing that we all liked a lot in the thing that we all liked a lot in the movie was how good at actressing movie was how good at actressing Paris Hilton was. She shoud win a Paris Hilton was. She shoud win a Grammie for her role!”Grammie for her role!”
Overall rating: 9 / Overall rating: 9 / 1010
Should I Believe This Review?
Reviewer has reviewed other movies and shows
n > 1 (friends agreed with review) Reviewer is literate (somewhat) Paris Hilton is talented...
Meta-analysis
Comprehensive: Include ALL studies regardless of design & p level
Common metric Quantification & Objectivity
“Do No Harm” – Nice Motto
But, some criminal justice policies and practices do cause (“unintended”?) harm –
To the community To the person
Doing Harm to the Community: The “Get Tough” Movement
Utilitarian Model of Crime– If crime pays, then up the costs
Just Deserts– Punishment as a deserved social value; It is
the “fair” thing to do
Has this worked?– U.S. has ¼ of world prison population (7
million under correctional supervision)
Harm to the Community: “Get Tough” and Recidivism
Sanction N Prison vs Community Adults (71) .07* 76,287 Juveniles (24) .09* 4,118 Longer Sentence Adults (228) .03* 68,303 Juveniles (5) .00 38,862 Intermediate Sanctions Adults (104) - .02 44,870 Juveniles (59) .00 11,141
Smith et al., 2002
Doing Harm to the Person
Denial of liberty Barriers to pursue social “goods” Sanctions for punishment and not as punishment
Personal degradation
Why Do We Continue to do Harm?
Politics Disrespect for Evidence Dumb theories
Disrespect for Evidence
Remember: Inhibits — does not teach new behavior
Vary punishers (few universal punishers) Immediate Appropriate intensity Type of person:
* nonimpulsive, future-oriented
* average to above-average IQ
* minimal punishment history
* cautious, avoids/minimizes excitement
Dumb Theories: Correctional Quackery
“treatment interventions that are based neither on existing knowledge of the causes of crime or programs that have shown to change offender behavior” Dismissive of evidence
Dumb Theories Lead to Dumb Interventions: Correctional
Quackery Drama/Art/Horticultural Therapies Acupuncture TM Healing Breath Training Pet Therapy Vision Training Much Music Therapy…
Doing Good: Not So Dumb Theories
Forensic Mental Health
A Psychology of Criminal Conduct: A General
Personality and Cognitive Social Learning Perspective
Forensic Mental Health
The Cause of Crime
Cause is within the person and pathological
Example theories: Psychiatric disorders (e.g., paranoid schizophrenic), Psychopathy, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Neurotic-Anxious
Implications for Assessment and Treatment
Assessment TreatmentAnxiety Relaxation, medication
Intellectual/ Educational/RemedialCognitive Deficits
Self-esteem CounselingDepressionAlienation
Schizophrenia Hospitalization,Manic-depression medicationHallucinationsDelusions
Risk Assessment in Corrections
Usage (%) Test Boothby &
Clements (2000) Gallagher et
al. (1999)
MMPI/MMPI-2 87 96
Rorschach 20 36
Other Projectives 14 28
Actuarial Risk 12 3 <
Clinical Measure Study 1
Self-esteem ns
Anxiety ns
Locus of Control ns
Depression -.21*
Clinical Predictors
Study 2
ns
ns
ns
ns
Psychological Distress and Intellectual Dysfunction
Risk Factor k N r Personal Distress 66 19,933 .05 Intelligence 32 21,369 .07
Gendreau et al., 1996
Mental Disorder as a Predictor of Recidivism
General Violent
NGRI -.06 * -.02
(1830) (1462)
MDO -.19 ** -.10 **
(3009) (2866)
(Bonta et al. 1998)
NGRI = Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity
MDO = Mentally Disordered Offender
Principles of Effective Rehabilitation
Risk Principle Treat the higher risk
Need Principle Address criminogenic needs
Responsivity Principle use cognitive-behavioural interventions
Meta-analysis of the Treatment of MDO
Comprehensiveness of Intervention– 78% targeted mental illness only– 4% targeted criminogenic needs; 13%
targeted both
Appropriate Correctional Intervention– 33% not appropriate– 53% somewhat appropriate– 5% appropriate
(Morgan, Flora, Kroner, et al., 2007)
Forensic Mental Health: Summary
Indicators of psychological distress and psychopathology are weak predictors of criminal behavior
Treatment targets being used today for MDOs are unlikely to result in significant reductions in recidivism
General Personality and Cognitive Social Learning (GPCSL)
Basic Ideas
Behaviour is learned following established learning principles
Learning is a function of the immediate situation
The situation interacts with person factors
General Personality Cognitive Social Learning (GPCSL)
The immediate situation
Antisocial Associates
Family/Marital
Rewards/costs favourableto crime
Antisocial attitudes
Antisocial personality pattern
Criminal History
Convention: School & Work/ Leisure/ Substance Abuse
Family of origin, ability, values,temperament
NeighbourhoodSupport for
Crime
Gender
Age
Ethnicity
Criminalconduct
Type Factor General MDO Sex
History of antisocial behaviour .16 .22 .13
Antisocial personality pattern .18 .18 .14
Antisocial cognition .18 ~ .09
The
“Big
Fou
r”
Ris
k Fa
ctor
s
Antisocial associates .21 ~ ~
Family and/or marital .10 .10 .08
School and/or work .13 .06 .03
Leisure and/or recreation .21 ~ ~
The
“Cen
tral E
ight
” Ris
k Fa
ctor
s
Substance abuse .10 .11 .03
Personal and/or emotional distress .05 -.04 .01
Low IQ .07 .01 .09
Social class of origin .05 .00 .05
Exa
mpl
es o
f
Min
or R
isk
Fact
ors
GPCSL and Risk Assessment
GPSCL and Risk Assessment
Sample at a minimum the Big Four and ideally the Central Eight
Seven of the Central Eight are dynamic risk factors (criminogenic needs)
Are we doing this?
1st Generation (Clinical Judgment)
2nd Generation: Static
3rd Generation: Integrated Risk & Need
4th Generation
Four Generations of Risk Assessment
1st Generation: I Can Tell
Second Generation: Static Risk
.
Item SIR VRAG
Offence/Criminal History
Age
Prior Parole Failure
Substance Abuse History
Unemployed
Marital Status
Female Victim/Injury
Parental Separation
APD/Psychopathy
Schizophrenia
School problems
# of items
15
12
Third Generation: Dynamic Risk
Predictor k N r
Dynamic 482 226,664 .13
Static 536 457,552 .11
General Violent
3rd .36 .25
Dynamic Risk: Advantages
Monitoring Offenders
Selecting Intervention Targets
Evaluating Treatment
Dynamic Predictive Validity Re-assessment Risk
Study N Intake Risk Low High
Andrews & Robinson 57 Low 4.2 28.6 (1984) High 0.0 57.1
Motiuk et al. (1990) 55 Low 0.0 33.3 High 0.0 54.5
Raynor et al. (2000) 157 Low 26.2 54.8 England & Wales High 55.3 78.4
Raynor (2007) 203 Low 29.0 59.0 Jersey High 54.0 76.0
Arnold (2007) 1064 Low 13.0 26.0 High 32.0 54.0
Predictive Validity
Type of RecidivismRisk Scale General Violent 1st .10 .13
2nd .29 .31
3rd .36 .25
4th .41 .29 ________________________________ ___
(From Andrews, Bonta & Wormith, 2006)
The Four Generations of Risk Assessment First Generation
subjective; poor inter-rater reliabilitypredictive accuracy: poor
Second Generationobjective, empirically linked criteriagood inter-rater reliabilitymostly static and criminal history variables
Third Generationall advantages of second generationcriminogenic needs
Fourth Generationall advantages of third generation integration of assessment with case management in
accordance with the RNR principles
(Andrews & Bonta, 2006)
What Does GPCSL Mean for Treatment?
GPCSL is the theoretical basis to the Risk-
Need-Responsivity Principles of Effective
Intervention
GPCSL and the Risk PrincipleAssess risk and match treatment services to risk level
The immediate situation
Antisocial Associates
Family/Marital
Rewards/costs favourableto crime
Antisocial attitudes
Antisocial personality pattern
Criminal History
Convention: School & Work/ Leisure/ Substance Abuse
Family of origin, ability, values,temperament
NeighbourhoodSupport for
Crime
Gender
Age
Ethnicity
Criminalconduct
GPCSL and the Need Principle
Assess and target criminogenic needs
The immediate situation
Antisocial Associates
Family/Marital
Rewards/costs favourableto crime
Antisocial attitudes
Antisocial personality pattern
Criminal History
Convention: School & Work/ Leisure/ Substance Abuse
Family of origin, ability, values,temperament
NeighbourhoodSupport for
Crime
Gender
Age
Ethnicity
Criminalconduct
GPCSL and the Responsivity Principle
Match treatment style to offender’s learning style
Behaviour is learned following established learning principles (General Responsivity: Cognitive-Behavioural)
The situation interacts with person factors (Specific Responsivity)
Adherence to Principles by Setting
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 1 2 3
# of Treatment Principles
Decrease
Increase
Rec
idiv
ism
Community
Residence
Do the same principles apply to sexual offender treatment programs?
Sex Offender Treatment and RNR
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2av
erag
e ph
i
None 1 principle 2 principles All three
4 studies 6 studies 12 studies 1 study
(Hanson et al., 2008)
Comparative effects sizes for selected interventions
Intervention Target Effect size
Aspirin Heart attack 0.03
Chemotherapy Breast cancer 0.11
Bypass surgery Heart disease 0.15
Offender Treatment Recidivism 0.12 (ns)
0.29
(approp)
Making it Work
RNR Adherence Level of RNR Adherence Program Type 0 1 2 3 Demonstration .01 .07 .31 .34 Real World -.02 .04 .09 .15
Going Beyond Structured Programs
To reduce recidivism, many jurisdictions deliver structured
group programs that attend to the Risk, Need, and Responsivity Principles
Are the principles applied in individual community supervision?
Manitoba Case Management Study
Key Questions:
a) Is level of intervention proportional to risk?
b) Does supervision target criminogenic needs?
c) Are probation officers using the techniques associated with reduced recidivism (i.e., cognitive-behavioural strategies, problem-solving)?
(Bonta et al., 2004)
Supervision Target Criminogenic Needs?
Need Area % Discussed When Need Present
Family/Marital 90
Substance Abuse 78
Accommodation 57
Employment/Academic 57
Peer Problems 21
Attitudes 9
Targeting Criminogenic Needs and Recidivism
More focus on criminogenic needs, lower the recidivism
Length of Discussion Recidivism (%)
Low (0-15 minutes) 59.8
Medium (16-30 minutes)
47.6
High (40+ minutes) 20.3
Impact on Recidivism
Length of interview unrelated to recidivism
Almost all interviews spent some time discussing probation conditions
However ……
Probation Conditions and Recidivism
Compliance with the probation conditions is a fact of community supervision
But too much emphasis can backfire
Time Recidivism
10 minutes 18.9%
15 minutes or more 42.3%
Rates adjusted for risk level
Best Practices Techniques: 1. Relationship Factors
Variable @ Intake @ 6 months
Encourages 97% 96%
Empathy 48% 22%
Warmth 46% 48%
Enthusiastic 27% 40%
Indicators of a positive rapport with clients were highly variable
Best Practices Techniques: 2. Behavioural Indicators
Variable @ Intake
@ 6 months
Prosocial reinforcement 68% 72%
Homework assigned 28% 24%
Practice 22% 24%
Procriminal discouragement
20% 18%
Prosocial modeling 17% 15%
Many indicators of behavioural influence were absent
Manitoba Case Management Study: Major Findings
1) Modest adherence to Risk Principle
2) Identified criminogenic needs were not discussed in the majority of cases (Need Principle)
3) Relationship and cognitive-behavioural skills used inconsistently (Responsivity Principle)
The Mother of STICS
Manitoba Case Management Study
STICS Project
Three-Day Training in Evidence-Based Practice
1. A General Personality Social-Cognitive Model
2. Risk Principle
3. Need Principle
4. Responsivity Principle:
a) interpersonal relationship
b) structuring skills (cognitive-behavioural)
c) relevance to the client
5. Skill Maintenance
Evaluation Design
Volunteers
Training
No Training
Early Findings
* Differences are significant
Did Training Change PO Behaviour?
* Differences are significant
PO Behaviour
Did Training Change Client Behaviour?
Are client outcomes different?– At 6 months– Negative outcomes– Based on all available information
Charged with a new offenceBreach of probationFailure to report for at least 2
months
Control 50
STICS 37.8
Average 43
Excellent 27
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Recidivism (6 months)
% r
ec
idiv
ism
Did STICS Training Change Client Behaviour?
Positive, yet preliminary
Strong evidence that
– STICS POs more frequently demonstrated practices in adherence to RNR
6 month outcomes favourable to STICS
– 12% average difference in negative outcomes
– 23% difference with quality considered
Summary: Making It Work in the Real World
What we need to do:
Teach staff a specific model of treatment (RNR) Use an evidence-based risk/need risk assessment; at
least 3rd generation Train and supervise staff on relationship and cognitive-
behavioural skills Monitor intermediate change Keep it small numbers - integrity Avoid correctional quackery and respect the evidence
Indian wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the
best strategy is to dismount In corrections, we often try other strategies
1. Buy a stronger whip.
2. Change riders
3. Appoint a committee to study the horse.
4. Visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.
5. Give added funding to increase the horse’s performance.
6. Study alternative uses for dead horses.
7. Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.