Chapter 4 - Correctional Services Flashcards
1
Q
why asses risk
A
identify those likely to commit crimes
determine the aspects of a sentence
create a treatment plan based on the person’s needs
see if risk is lessened
see if someone is ready to be released
keeping someone for public safety
2
Q
recidivism
A
comming a new criminal offense following previous detection or release
3
Q
types of recidivism
A
violent, non-violent, sexual, and general
4
Q
violent recidivism
A
any conviction for a person involved offence (including sexual offences) with the potential for physical or psychological harm
5
Q
nonviolent recidivism
A
technical breeches – violating conditions of parole, theft, break and enter
6
Q
sexual recidivism
A
committing new sex offences – contact or no contact
7
Q
general recidivism
A
any kind of new crime
8
Q
how is recidivism measured
A
criminal reports
9
Q
risk assesment is used for
A
recidivism prevention - * Purpose of risk assessment is to prevent new crimes from occurring
* Risk assessment to inform risk management
- Recidivism isn’t a foregone conclusion
10
Q
steps in risk assesment
A
- use of multiple information sources
- asses multiple domains of functioning
- use of multiple assesment methods
- evaluate the credibility of information sources
- assess static and dynamic risk factors
- assesment of strengths and protective factors
11
Q
static risk variables
A
variable that tend not to change and are frequently historical in nature
- age, employment, prior offenses
12
Q
protective factors
A
Variables that are linked to positive, healthy, and noncriminal outcomes (e.g., getting a job, desisting from crime, maintaining a residence, having positive friends).
- Positive coping, empathy, etc.
13
Q
dynamic variables
A
variables that have the potential to change from treatment, experience, or other change agents
14
Q
what is used to asses protective factors
A
17-item protective factors tool developed in The Netherlands
Structured Professional Judgment tool (SPJ)
Rate the items (0, 1, 2) but don’t sum them to generate numeric scores; look at item configuration to generate protection level of low, medium, or high
- People might sum these items for research purposes
15
Q
challenges in risk assesment
A
low base rate
16
Q
low base rate
A
Rare events are hard to predict
Some forms of recidivism are quite rare (e.g., sexual murder) while others are more frequent (e.g., property crime)
- Base rate of homicide for risk assessment in correctional services is very low
- Since homicide is so rare – you would asses their risk for general recidivism
17
Q
false positive
A
prediction of crime but didn’t happen
18
Q
true positive
A
prediction of crime and did happen
19
Q
true negative
A
no prediction but crime did happen
20
Q
false negative
A
no prediction and crime did not happen
21
Q
point biserial correlation
A
linear correlaion (-1-1)
22
Q
standarfdized mean difference
A
recidivist vs non recidivist (+/- 2.0)
23
Q
area under the curve
A
predicitive accuracy
24
Q
four generations of recidividm risk assesment
A
unstructured clinical assesment, static variable measures, dynamic + static variable measure, LSI-R risk category
25
unstructured clinical judgement
gut feeling index
conduct interviews, review files, etc
make general assessments or global predictions - in my professional opinion
26
strengths of first generation approach
can explore many different aspects of client's situation
can reflect unique circumstances
tailor it to a client's needs
27
weaknesses of first generation approach
subject to too much personal bias - can lead to overprediction - false positives!!!
- subjective intuitive gut feelings
- decision rules not observable
overlook or overemphasize info
overreliance on 1st generation - problematic and inhibits the advancement of knowledge
not systematic or effective
too much bias
AUC = about half the time = small effect size
28
1st gen RA approach
unstructured clinical judgement
29
2nd gen RA approach
static variable measures
30
2nd gen RA - static variable
objective, empirically based static RA instruements - Statistical Information on Recidividm scale
static actuarial or empirically actuarial tools
ex: number of break and enters - high frequency = high risk
no clinician
use info readily availible
31
actuarial
Items (predictors) are statistically associated with increased recidivism
Individual items may be weighted differently
32
strengths of 2nd gen RA
Objective and accountable
Cover important static (historical) risk factors
Clearly articulated decision rules
33
weaknesses of 2nd gen RA
Consist of static predictors only
Not capable of measuring change
Item weights may not generalize – does it generalize to a provincial tool? Federal tool?
Atheoretical
Can get weird combinations of predictors sometimes
34
SIR Scale
Nuffield (1982) developed the SIR using 15 variables
Example of a static actuarial tool
Weighted score on 15 static items (scores range: -27 to +30)
Grouped into 5 categories/risk groups – returning to custody within 3 years of release
Every male non-Indigenous client in CSC has the SIR scale rated on them at intake
35
statistics of sir
3,267 parolees released in 1983-1984
Followed up for 3 years
General recidivism: 48.7%
Violent recidivism: 9.8%
Excellent predictive accuracy for general recidivism (r = .42; AUC = .74)
Medium accuracy for violent recidivism (r = .15, which converts to d = .50 or AUC = .64)
36
criminogenic needs
crime causing factors, dynamic risk factors that need to be addressed in treatment to reduce recidivism
37
3rd generation RA
static and dynamic risk items informed by theory and research (actuarial or SPJ)
intergration of assesment
criminogenic needs
scores need to drive treatment
38
strengths of RA 3rd
Assess a much wider range of variables
Consist of both static and dynamic variables
Sensitive to change as a result of “maturation” or effective programming
Theoretically based rather than empirically driven
39
weaknesses of RA third gen
May not be able to capture change
May not be specific
Follow-though to case closure may not be explicit
Don’t have explicit guidelines to measure change
40
LSI-R
* Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R; Andrews & Bonta, 1995)
Many variants of the LSI family of measures (e.g., adapted for youth, community case management)
54 items scored present or absent (1-0)
Five risk levels
Very low, low, moderate, moderate-high, high
- dependent on central 8
most people score moderate
couple it with a risk needs tool
41
fourth generation RA
meta analysis of the LSI scales
42
fourth gen RA - dynamic, static, and treatment
improvement on 3rd generation – more designed to inform case management – supports and services
Designed to be integrated into
a) the process of risk management,
b) the selection of intervention modes and targets for treatment
c) the assessment of rehabilitation progress
Guides and follows service and supervision from intake through case closure
43
strengths of fourth gen instruments
Assessed variables are explicitly linked to criminal recidivism
Includes static and dynamic variables
Sensitive to change as a result of “maturation” or effective programming
Follows client to case closure
44
weaknesses of fourth gen
None unique to fourth generation tools; but some general shortcomings indicative of all measures
45
examples of fourth generation
Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI)
Based on central 8
Guide case management from point of intake to case closure
Violence Risk Scale (VRS)
Capacity to link assessment and treatment and to evaluate change (will cover further in “Violent Offender” class)
46
martinsons nothing works doctrine
40-60% evidenced positive treatment effects but martinson's conclusion remained negative - because of knowledge destructions
47
why were martinson's conclusions bias
because of anti-psychological bias
48
knowledge destruction
preconcieved ideas that differ from empirical/theoretical knowledge - tend to overlook actual information against better judgement
49
anti-psychological bias
thinking by changing the individual - you can treat mental illnesses
50
results of meta analysis held to study effective correctional intervention
services subdivided into 4 types: criminal sanctions, innappropriate services, appropraite services, unspecific services
approporiate interventions yielded marked reductions in recidivism (n = 54, phi = .30) unspecific had a 0.13 effect size
51
criminal sanctions
just plain prison, probation, etc
52
inappropriate services for prisoners
punishing or humilitating in a violent matter
53
appropriate services
CMT/behavioural based
54
unspecified services
unsure of what services - could be psychodynamic
55
effective treatment for correctional populations follows 3 basic principles:
- risk
- need
- responsivity
56
what is risk need responsivity
ultimate way of integrating assessment and rehab - most effective way of planning interventions
57
risk principle
* Level of intensity of treatment should match the level of risk presented by the client.
High risk clients receive high intensity treatment
Low risk clients receive few or minimal services
- More severe the problem – the more services
- Don’t overtreat – lower risk offenders don’t need extensive risk assessment/intervention
58
risk principle examined by anklet bracelet studt
groups monitored with ankle monitors
- Two groups low risk + high risk
- Low risk monitoring, low risk no monitor, high risk monitor, high risk no monitor
- High risk statistics made sense BUT
- Low risk with the monitor was almost the same as high level with monitor
o Result: they were overserviced
o Busted for things they don’t need to be busted for – waste resources and make things worse
59
illutsration of risk principle based on programs in halfway houses
* Evaluated community based residential correctional programs in Ohio halfway houses
* Completed residential program n = 7366 – residential program offered within the halfway house
- Everyone got this program in this group – no matter the level of risk
* Control group (no residential program) n = 5855
* 2-year follow up
- What they found
o Treatment of low risk individuals = increased recidivism– low positive impacts
o Treatment of high risk individuals = recidivism reduction – less negative treatment impacts
o Invest services in those who need it
60
need principle
* Effective correctional treatment directly target criminogenic needs
- Prioritize criminogenic needs and dynamic risk factors
61
criminogenic needs
“crime-causing”
Also known as dynamic risk factors
Improvement in criminogenic needs = reduction in risk for re-offending.
Criminogenic needs are important treatment targets
regardless of client group or offense pattern.
62
level of service inventory focuses on
1. Offense history
2. Antisocial Peers
3. Antisocial Personality
4. Antisocial Attitudes
5. Family/Marital
6. Employment/Education
7. Substance Abuse
8. Leisure/Recreation
63
why do people wind up in jail?
- People wind up in jail because they do not have critical and future-serving skills
- Lack prosocial living skills
- These areas point to the lack of these skills
64
non criminogenic needs
deserve to be treat but are not involved with the origin of crime and you won’t reduce the rate recidivism by fixing these
65
meta analysis targeting criminogenic needs results
- 4-6 crimingenic needs – 31% reduction in recidivism
66
correlation of need and effect size of targeting criminogenic needs
- If you take correlation of targeting criminogenic needs and effect size – targeting helps increase effect size
67
what is the best of changing attitudes and mindsets
- Confronting and challenging people’s mindset
- Use humour – don’t antagonize
- Attitude system – affects expressive behaviour
68
general responsivity
- Responsivity – tailoring services to the needs of clientele to increase buy-in and response to therapy
- Tailor to learning styles
69
specific responsivity
Effective treatments involve matching the treatment with the learning style and cognitive capabilities of the individual.
70
examples of specific responsivity factors
Cognitive/intellectual deficits
Mental health/illness
Motivation
Demographic variables
Cultural factors
Psychopathy (factor 1)
- Separate indigenous streams of rehab
71
lack of basic responsivity factors can...
undermine effectiveness of treatment and increase attrition.
72
stages of change
- Precontemplation
- Contemplation
- Preparation
- Action
- Maintenance
- LAPSE/RELAPSE
73
application of stages of change in example of substance abuse
precontemplation - denial or no awareness of addiction
contemplation - aware of the problem but no solution - use hasn't changed
preparation - work on issues that might lead them to drink excessively - stop going out on weekdays, etc.
action - incorprated these strategies systainable - got a handle on the addiction - have new sets of skills and strategies maintenance - generalization of transferred learning – even if they hang out with someone who has an addiction they do not participate – risk factor is gone (a couple of years)
LAPSE - most likely to occur before maintenance
74
noncompleters characteristics in terms of responsivity
noncompleters more likely to be high risk cases
nocompletion linked to recikdivism
Implications for the responsivity principle - don't weed out difficult clients
75
possible ways to address responsivity
be sensitive to educational attainment of offenders
sensitive to cultural differences
asses motivation and treatment readiness
76
how to be sensitive to cultural differences in terms of responsivity
combine traditional and westernized treatment approaches.
77
how to asses motivation and treatment readiness
stage matches interventions + motivating interviewing
78
stage matches interventions
behavioral interventions for preparation stage – better geared at this stage – since they are aware and willing make a change
79
motivational interviewing
a style of client engagement – mobilizing motivation – expressing empathy, developing a view on where they want to be, validating a client, have to be patient and expect pushback – avoid argumentation
80
is more RNR principles better for reducing recidivism?
* The greater the number of principles adhered to, the larger the reductions in recidivism.
* The results are supported by individual meta analyses as well as cumulative meta analyses.\
- 23% reduction with all 3, 18% reduction with 2, 2% reduction with only 1
81
premise of core correctional practices
social learning theory - watching other and learning from enviroment, family, peers, co workers, and relying on punishment and reward to behaviours
82
what are core correntional practice
responsivity in action – general and specific – way of targeting criminogenic needs through responsivity
83
interaction skills in core correctional practice - REEEED
- relationship practices
- dealing with resistance
- effective reinforcement
- effective reinforcement
- effective disapproval
- effective use of authority
84
relationship practice - intercation skills in CCP
Overlaps with motivational agreement – still treat them with kindness and compassion, warmth, sense of humour, validation, hard-headed and soft-hearted,
85
dealing with resistance - intercation skills in CCP
- Not getting defensive and argumentative when they are showing resistance on changing from things they are comfortable with
86
effective reinforcement - intercation skills in CCP
- Lots of social grace for the right things – reinforce the right behaviours
87
effective disapproval - intercation skills in CCP
- Involves telling people how they messed up
88
effective use of authority in interaction skills in CCP
- dont abuse authority
89
intervention skills in CCP - PACS
anti-criminal modeling
skill building
problem solving
cognitive restructuring
90
anti-criminal modeling in intervention skills of CCP
- leading by example - behave prosocially
91
skill building - intervention skills in CCP
- new ways of thinking and behaving
92
problem solving - intervention skills in CCP
thinking of other ways to deal with situations
93
cognitive restructuring in intervention skills in CCP
changing attitudes and values
94
how to ensure program intergrity in CCP and RNR
* Implementation and delivery of program in its intended fashion
* Attention paid to evidence-based principles
* Protects against program drift
95
CPAI Rating
rates fidelity and Recidivism
96
fidelity
adherence to program
97
