Transcript Chapter 9

The Practical Significance of a Psychology
of Criminal Conduct
James Bonta
Public Safety Canada
Dutch Probation Service & University of Applied Sciences
Utrecht, the Netherlands
May 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 reviews
Excerpt From First Hit
“This is by far one of the best movies that I
have seen. I saw it with my friends and they
liked it too. One thing that we all liked a lot in
the movie was how good at actressing Paris
Hilton was. She shoud win a Grammie for her
role!”
Overall rating: 9 / 10
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
.07*
.09*
76,287
4,118
.03*
.00
68,303
38,862
- .02
.00
44,870
11,141
Prison vs Community
Adults (71)
Juveniles (24)
Longer Sentence
Adults (228)
Juveniles (5)
Intermediate Sanctions
Adults (104)
Juveniles (59)
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
Anxiety

Intellectual/

Cognitive Deficits
Self-esteem
Depression
Alienation

Schizophrenia

Manic-depression
Hallucinations
Delusions
Treatment
Relaxation, medication
Educational/Remedial
Counseling
Hospitalization,
medication
Risk Assessment in Corrections
Test
Usage (%)
Boothby &
Gallagher et
Clements (2000)
al. (1999)
MMPI/MMPI-2
87
96
Rorschach
20
36
Other Projectives
14
28
Actuarial Risk
12
3<
Clinical Predictors
Clinical Measure
Study 1
Study 2
Self-esteem
ns
ns
Anxiety
ns
ns
Locus of Control
ns
ns
Depression
-.21*
ns
Psychological Distress and
Intellectual Dysfunction
Risk Factor
Personal Distress
Intelligence
k
N
r
66
32
19,933
21,369
.05
.07
Gendreau et al., 1996
Mental Disorder as a Predictor
of Recidivism
NGRI
MDO
General
-.06 *
(1830)
-.19 **
(3009)
Violent
-.02
(1462)
-.10 **
(2866)
NGRI = Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity
MDO = Mentally Disordered Offender
(Bonta et al. 1998)
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
Family of origin,
ability, values,
temperament
Neighbourhood
Support for
Crime
Antisocial Associates
Family/Marital
Rewards/costs favourable
to crime
Criminal
con duct
Gender
Antisocial attitudes
Age
Convention: School & Work/ Leisure/
Substance Abuse
Antisocial pe rsonality patte rn
Ethnicity
C riminal History
GPCSL and Risk Assessment
The “Big Four”
Risk Factors
Examples of
Minor Risk
Factors
The “Central Eight” Risk Factors
Type
Factor
General
MDO
Sex
History of antisocial behaviour
.16
.22
.13
Antisocial personality pattern
.18
.18
.14
Antisocial cognition
.18
~
.09
Antisocial associates
.21
~
~
Family and/or marital
.10
.10
.08
School and/or work
.13
.06
.03
Leisure and/or recreation
.21
~
~
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
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?
Four Generations of Risk
Assessment
1st Generation (Clinical Judgment)
2nd Generation: Static
3rd Generation: Integrated Risk & Need
4th Generation
1st Generation: I Can Tell
Second Generation: Static Risk
Item
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
SIR





15
VRAG










12
Third Generation: Dynamic Risk
k
N
r
Dynamic
482
226,664
.13
Static
536
457,552
.11
Predictor
General
3rd
.36
Violent
.25
Dynamic Risk: Advantages

Monitoring Offenders

Selecting Intervention Targets

Evaluating Treatment
Dynamic Predictive Validity
Re-assessment Risk
Low
High
Study
N
Intake Risk
Andrews & Robinson
(1984)
57
Low
High
4.2
0.0
28.6
57.1
Motiuk et al. (1990)
55
Low
High
0.0
0.0
33.3
54.5
Raynor et al. (2000)
England & Wales
157
Low
High
26.2
55.3
54.8
78.4
Raynor (2007)
Jersey
203
Low
High
29.0
54.0
59.0
76.0
Arnold (2007)
1064
Low
High
13.0
32.0
26.0
54.0
Predictive Validity
Risk Scale
1st
Type of Recidivism
General
Violent
.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 reliability
predictive accuracy: poor
Second Generation
objective, empirically linked criteria
good inter-rater reliability
mostly static and criminal history variables
Third Generation
all advantages of second generation
criminogenic needs
Fourth Generation
all 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 RiskNeed-Responsivity Principles of Effective
Intervention
GPCSL and the Risk Principle
Assess risk and match treatment services to risk level
The immediate situation
Family of origin,
ability, values,
temperament
Neighbourhood
Support for
Crime
Antisocial Associates
Family/Marital
Rewards/costs f avourable
to crime
Criminal
conduct
Gender
Antisocial attitudes
Age
Convention: School & Work/ Leisure/
Substance Abuse
Antisocial personality pattern
Ethnicity
Criminal History
GPCSL and the Need Principle
Assess and target criminogenic needs
The immediate situation
Family of origin,
ability, values,
temperament
Neighbourhood
Support for
Crime
Antisocial Associates
Family/Marital
Rewards/costs f avourable
to crime
Criminal
conduct
Gender
Antisocial attitudes
Age
Convention: School & Work/ Leisure/
Substance Abuse
Antisocial personality pattern
Ethnicity
Criminal History
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
40
35
Decrease
30
25
Community
 Residence
Recidivism
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
Increase
-15
0
1
2
3
# of Treatment Principles
Do the same principles apply to sexual
offender treatment programs?
Sex Offender Treatment and RNR
0.2
average phi
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
4 studies
None
6 studies
1 principle
12 studies
1 study
2 principles
All three
(Hanson et al., 2008)
Comparative effects sizes for selected
interventions
Intervention
Aspirin
Target
Effect size
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, problemsolving)?
(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)
High (40+ minutes)
47.6
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
Time
10 minutes
15 minutes or more
Recidivism
18.9%
42.3%
Rates adjusted for risk level
 But too much emphasis can backfire
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
Prosocial reinforcement
Homework assigned
Practice
Procriminal
discouragement
Prosocial modeling
@
Intake
68%
28%
22%
20%
17%
@6
months
72%
24%
24%
18%
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
Did Training
ChangePO
POBehaviour
Behaviour?
Post-training
5
# segment/mean rating
4.5
Control
STICS
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
ID Criminogenic Needs*
Procriminal Attitudes*
Global Quality Score*
* Differences are significant
PO Behaviour
Post-Training PO Behaviour
3
Control
STICS
mean rating
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Structure*
Relationship
Building*
Cog-Behavioural* Gen-Behavioural* Reinforcement &
Disapproval
* Differences are significant
Modeling
Tot Intervention
Skills*
Did Training Change Client Behaviour?
Are client outcomes different?
– At 6 months
– Negative outcomes
– Based on all available information
Charged with a new offence
Breach of probation
Failure to report for at least 2
months
Did STICS Training Change
Client Behaviour?
60
Control 50
50
% recidivism
Average 43
40
STICS 37.8
Excellent 27
30
20
10
0
Recidivism (6 months)
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 cognitivebehavioural 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.