Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psych 230 > Chapter 4 - Correctional Services > Flashcards

Chapter 4 - Correctional Services Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
GRE® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

recidivism

A

comming a new criminal offense following previous detection or release

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

types of recidivism

A

violent, non-violent, sexual, and general

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

violent recidivism

A

any conviction for a person involved offence (including sexual offences) with the potential for physical or psychological harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

nonviolent recidivism

A

technical breeches – violating conditions of parole, theft, break and enter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

sexual recidivism

A

committing new sex offences – contact or no contact

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

general recidivism

A

any kind of new crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

how is recidivism measured

A

criminal reports

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

static risk variables

A

variable that tend not to change and are frequently historical in nature
- age, employment, prior offenses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

dynamic variables

A

variables that have the potential to change from treatment, experience, or other change agents

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

challenges in risk assesment

A

low base rate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

false positive

A

prediction of crime but didn’t happen

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

true positive

A

prediction of crime and did happen

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

true negative

A

no prediction but crime did happen

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

false negative

A

no prediction and crime did not happen

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

point biserial correlation

A

linear correlaion (-1-1)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

standarfdized mean difference

A

recidivist vs non recidivist (+/- 2.0)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

area under the curve

A

predicitive accuracy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

four generations of recidividm risk assesment

A

unstructured clinical assesment, static variable measures, dynamic + static variable measure, LSI-R risk category

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

unstructured clinical judgement

A

gut feeling index
conduct interviews, review files, etc
make general assessments or global predictions - in my professional opinion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

strengths of first generation approach

A

can explore many different aspects of client’s situation
can reflect unique circumstances
tailor it to a client’s needs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

weaknesses of first generation approach

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

1st gen RA approach

A

unstructured clinical judgement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

2nd gen RA approach

A

static variable measures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

2nd gen RA - static variable

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

actuarial

A

 Items (predictors) are statistically associated with increased recidivism
 Individual items may be weighted differently

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

strengths of 2nd gen RA

A

 Objective and accountable
 Cover important static (historical) risk factors
 Clearly articulated decision rules

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

weaknesses of 2nd gen RA

A

 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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

SIR Scale

A

 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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

statistics of sir

A

 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)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

criminogenic needs

A

crime causing factors, dynamic risk factors that need to be addressed in treatment to reduce recidivism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

3rd generation RA

A

static and dynamic risk items informed by theory and research (actuarial or SPJ)
intergration of assesment
criminogenic needs
scores need to drive treatment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

strengths of RA 3rd

A

 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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

weaknesses of RA third gen

A

 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
Q

LSI-R

A
  • 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
Q

fourth generation RA

A

meta analysis of the LSI scales

42
Q

fourth gen RA - dynamic, static, and treatment

A

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
Q

strengths of fourth gen instruments

A

 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
Q

weaknesses of fourth gen

A

 None unique to fourth generation tools; but some general shortcomings indicative of all measures

45
Q

examples of fourth generation

A

 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
Q

martinsons nothing works doctrine

A

40-60% evidenced positive treatment effects but martinson’s conclusion remained negative - because of knowledge destructions

47
Q

why were martinson’s conclusions bias

A

because of anti-psychological bias

48
Q

knowledge destruction

A

preconcieved ideas that differ from empirical/theoretical knowledge - tend to overlook actual information against better judgement

49
Q

anti-psychological bias

A

thinking by changing the individual - you can treat mental illnesses

50
Q

results of meta analysis held to study effective correctional intervention

A

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
Q

criminal sanctions

A

just plain prison, probation, etc

52
Q

inappropriate services for prisoners

A

punishing or humilitating in a violent matter

53
Q

appropriate services

A

CMT/behavioural based

54
Q

unspecified services

A

unsure of what services - could be psychodynamic

55
Q

effective treatment for correctional populations follows 3 basic principles:

A
  • risk
  • need
  • responsivity
56
Q

what is risk need responsivity

A

ultimate way of integrating assessment and rehab - most effective way of planning interventions

57
Q

risk principle

A
  • 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
Q

risk principle examined by anklet bracelet studt

A

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
Q

illutsration of risk principle based on programs in halfway houses

A
  • 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
Q

need principle

A
  • Effective correctional treatment directly target criminogenic needs
  • Prioritize criminogenic needs and dynamic risk factors
61
Q

criminogenic needs

A

“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
Q

level of service inventory focuses on

A

 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
Q

why do people wind up in jail?

A
  • 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
Q

non criminogenic needs

A

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
Q

meta analysis targeting criminogenic needs results

A
  • 4-6 crimingenic needs – 31% reduction in recidivism
66
Q

correlation of need and effect size of targeting criminogenic needs

A
  • If you take correlation of targeting criminogenic needs and effect size – targeting helps increase effect size
67
Q

what is the best of changing attitudes and mindsets

A
  • Confronting and challenging people’s mindset
  • Use humour – don’t antagonize
  • Attitude system – affects expressive behaviour
68
Q

general responsivity

A
  • Responsivity – tailoring services to the needs of clientele to increase buy-in and response to therapy
  • Tailor to learning styles
69
Q

specific responsivity

A

 Effective treatments involve matching the treatment with the learning style and cognitive capabilities of the individual.

70
Q

examples of specific responsivity factors

A

 Cognitive/intellectual deficits
 Mental health/illness
 Motivation
 Demographic variables
 Cultural factors
 Psychopathy (factor 1)
- Separate indigenous streams of rehab

71
Q

lack of basic responsivity factors can…

A

undermine effectiveness of treatment and increase attrition.

72
Q

stages of change

A
  • Precontemplation
  • Contemplation
  • Preparation
  • Action
  • Maintenance
  • LAPSE/RELAPSE
73
Q

application of stages of change in example of substance abuse

A

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
Q

noncompleters characteristics in terms of responsivity

A

noncompleters more likely to be high risk cases
nocompletion linked to recikdivism
Implications for the responsivity principle - don’t weed out difficult clients

75
Q

possible ways to address responsivity

A

be sensitive to educational attainment of offenders
sensitive to cultural differences
asses motivation and treatment readiness

76
Q

how to be sensitive to cultural differences in terms of responsivity

A

combine traditional and westernized treatment approaches.

77
Q

how to asses motivation and treatment readiness

A

stage matches interventions + motivating interviewing

78
Q

stage matches interventions

A

behavioral interventions for preparation stage – better geared at this stage – since they are aware and willing make a change

79
Q

motivational interviewing

A

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
Q

is more RNR principles better for reducing recidivism?

A
  • 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
Q

premise of core correctional practices

A

social learning theory - watching other and learning from enviroment, family, peers, co workers, and relying on punishment and reward to behaviours

82
Q

what are core correntional practice

A

responsivity in action – general and specific – way of targeting criminogenic needs through responsivity

83
Q

interaction skills in core correctional practice - REEEED

A
  • relationship practices
  • dealing with resistance
  • effective reinforcement
  • effective reinforcement
  • effective disapproval
  • effective use of authority
84
Q

relationship practice - intercation skills in CCP

A

Overlaps with motivational agreement – still treat them with kindness and compassion, warmth, sense of humour, validation, hard-headed and soft-hearted,

85
Q

dealing with resistance - intercation skills in CCP

A
  • Not getting defensive and argumentative when they are showing resistance on changing from things they are comfortable with
86
Q

effective reinforcement - intercation skills in CCP

A
  • Lots of social grace for the right things – reinforce the right behaviours
87
Q

effective disapproval - intercation skills in CCP

A
  • Involves telling people how they messed up
88
Q

effective use of authority in interaction skills in CCP

A
  • dont abuse authority
89
Q

intervention skills in CCP - PACS

A

anti-criminal modeling
skill building
problem solving
cognitive restructuring

90
Q

anti-criminal modeling in intervention skills of CCP

A
  • leading by example - behave prosocially
91
Q

skill building - intervention skills in CCP

A
  • new ways of thinking and behaving
92
Q

problem solving - intervention skills in CCP

A

thinking of other ways to deal with situations

93
Q

cognitive restructuring in intervention skills in CCP

A

changing attitudes and values

94
Q

how to ensure program intergrity in CCP and RNR

A
  • Implementation and delivery of program in its intended fashion
  • Attention paid to evidence-based principles
  • Protects against program drift
95
Q

CPAI Rating

A

rates fidelity and Recidivism

96
Q

fidelity

A

adherence to program

97
Q
A

Psych 230 (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions