Offender Assessment Utilizing the Risk-Need- Responsivity Model A web presentation for RSAT - T&TA by Roberta C. Churchill -ACJS

 This presentation builds upon the last two sessions on Assessments and Screening.  It will review three of the Principles of Effective Intervention – Risk, Need and Responsivity – and their importance in offender assessment, treatment / case planning and provision of treatment.  There will also be a brief look at the history of offender assessment as well as an overview of 4 th Generation RNR Assessment Instruments.

Screening ◦ Short; used with every offender in an intake-type setting ◦ Identifies offenders who might have the characteristic in question (e.g., mental health problem, substance abuse problem) ◦ Helps “triage” offenders for immediate attention ◦ Help decide need for a more comprehensive assessment ◦ Usually requires little to no training to administer

◦ Longer and more comprehensive; results give a multi-dimensional perspective of the offender ◦ Helps to develop specific recommendations for treatment and case planning ◦ Identifies needs that may require specialized services and/or community based referrals for re-entry planning ◦ Usually requires training to administer and interpret the results

RISKNEEDRESPONSIVITY

 How likely a person is to engage in criminal behaviors

 What areas in a person’s life should be targeted for intervention / supervision in order to decrease their likelihood of future criminal behavior

 What personal strengths and/or specific individual factors might influence the effectiveness of treatment services

Match level of services to level of risk

Prioritize supervision and treatment resources for higher risk clients

Match level of services to level of risk Prioritize supervision and treatment resources for higher risk clients Higher risk clients need more intensive services

Match level of services to level of risk Prioritize supervision and treatment resources for higher risk clients Higher risk clients need more intensive services Low risk clients require little to no intervention

Match level of services to level of risk Prioritize supervision and treatment resources for higher risk clients Higher risk clients need more intensive services Low risk clients require little to no intervention “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”

Authors of Study O’Donnell et al., 1971 Baird et al., 1979 Andrews & Kiessling, 1980 Andrews & Friesen, 1987 Offender RISK LEVEL MinimumIntensive Low Risk High Risk 16% 78% 22% 56% Low Risk High Risk 3% 37% 10% 18% 12% 58% 17% 31% 12% 92% 29% 25% % Recidivism: Tx BY RISK LEVEL Low Risk High Risk Low Risk High Risk (  6%) (  22%) (  7%) (  19%) (  5%) (  27%) (  17%) (  67%) Impact on RECIDIVISM Some studies combined intensive Tx with supervision or other services Compiled from: Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J., Hoge, R.D. (1990). Classification for Effective Rehabilitation: Rediscovering Psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17: Patterns in Risk Level & Tx Intensity

Bonta, J et al., A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program., Vol. 27 No 3: Criminal Justice and Behavior Bonta, J. et al, A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program. Vol. 27 No 3:317 – 329. Criminal Justice and Behavior Bonta, J et al., A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program., Vol. 27 No 3: Criminal Justice and Behavior Bonta, J et al., A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program., Vol. 27 No 3: Criminal Justice and Behavior Bonta, J et al., A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program., Vol. 27 No 3: Criminal Justice and Behavior Recent Study of Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision in Canada

16 Triage: Cutting the “Tail” Off One End of Your Caseload Low Risk Offender – has more favorable pro-social thinking and behavior than other risk levels. Divert to voluntary programming, work units, early release / parole.

Risk Principle WHO Risk Principle tells us WHO to target … DO … so now what do we DO?

Assess criminogenic needs and target those needs with treatment and interventions

Criminogenic ??

Dynamic or “changeable” risk factors that contribute to the likelihood that someone will commit a crime.

Dynamic or “changeable” risk factors that contribute to the likelihood that someone will commit a crime. Changes in these needs / risk factors are associated with changes in recidivism.

“People involved in the justice system have many needs deserving treatment, but not all of these needs are associated with criminal behavior.” - Andrews & Bonta (2006)

1.Anti-social Attitudes

2. Anti-social Peers

1. Anti-social Attitudes 2. Anti-social Peers 3. Anti-social Personality Pattern

1. Anti-social Attitudes 2. Anti-social Peers 3. Anti-social Personality Pattern 4. History of Anti-Social Behavior

1. Anti-social Attitudes 2. Anti-social Peers 3. Anti-social Personality Pattern 4. History of Anti-Social Behavior These are knows as the “Big Four” Risk Factors Most highly correlated with criminal behavior among all other factors

1. Anti-social Attitudes 2. Anti-social Peers 3. Anti-social Personality Pattern 4. History of Anti-Social Behavior (non-criminogenic) These are knows as the “Big Four” Risk Factors Most highly correlated with criminal behavior among all other factors

1. Anti-social Attitudes 2. Anti-social Peers 3. Anti-social Personality Pattern 4. History of Anti-Social Behavior 5. Family / Marital Factors

1. Anti-social Attitudes 2. Anti-social Peers 3. Anti-social Personality Pattern 4. History of Anti-Social Behavior 5. Family / Marital Factors 6. Lack of Achievement in Education / Employment

1. Anti-social Attitudes 2. Anti-social Peers 3. Anti-social Personality Pattern 4. History of Anti-Social Behavior 5. Family / Marital Factors 6. Lack of Achievement in Education / Employment 7. Lack of Pro-social Leisure Activities

1. Anti-social Attitudes 2. Anti-social Peers 3. Anti-social Personality Pattern 4. History of Anti-Social Behavior 5. Family / Marital Factors 6. Lack of Achievement in Education / Employment 7. Lack of Pro-social Leisure Activities 8. Substance Abuse

 Self-esteem  Anxiety  Lack of parenting skills  Medical needs  Victimization issues  Learning disability

Although NOT criminogenic risk factors, they are important to include in an effective RNR assessment. WHY?

 They may need to be addressed before or concurrently along with criminogenic needs in treatment since they may represent a barrier to effective participation in treatment otherwise.

 IT’S THE HUMANE THING TO DO.

High Risk offenders need MORE treatment and supervision to DECREASE their likelihood of recidivism Low Risk offenders need LESS treatment and supervision to DECREASE their likelihood of recidivism

High Risk offenders need MORE treatment and supervision to DECREASE their likelihood of recidivism Low Risk offenders need LESS treatment and supervision to DECREASE their likelihood of recidivism 1. Anti-Social Attitudes5. Family / Marital Issues 2. Anti-Social Peers 6. Lack of Achievement in Education 3. Anti-Social Personality Pattern and Employment 4. History of Anti-Social Behavior7. Lack of Pro-social Leisure Activity 8. Substance Abuse

Risk Principle WHO Risk Principle tells us WHO to target … Need Principle WHAT Need Principle tells us WHAT to target … HOW … so now HOW do we do it?

Identify offender strengths as they can be considered “protective” factors that may be built upon in treatment planning Computer skills Strong family relationships High educational level History of stable employment Strong ties to recovering community

Identify specific individual factors that might influence the effectiveness of treatment services Anxiety ADHD Motivation Level Gender Reading Level / ESL Language

How important is this really?

Adherence to Risk, Need, General Responsivity by Setting: Community Based versus Residential Programs Recidivism Source: Adopted from Andrews and Bonta (2006). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (4 th ). Newark: LexisNexis. Decrease Increase # of Principles Adhered to in Treatment

A Brief History of Assessments

 Based on Professional Judgment ◦ Unreliable, inaccurate ◦ Not helpful for case management

 Better at predicting risk than First Generation  Based on historical / static items  Unable to show change post-treatment

 Assessed offender needs as well as risk level  Included dynamic / changeable items  Theoretically based  Capable of re-assessment

 Include identification of offender strengths  Assess offender responsivity factors  Include particular non-criminogenic needs  Stress the integration of assessment results into treatment / case planning, review and interventions

 It actually DOES assess risk level, identify criminogenic needs and specific responsivity factors  Has a user’s / scoring manual and offers training in the administration and interpretation of results  Is normed on the population it is being administered, and preferably in the same setting

 It is “user-friendly”  Permits re-assessment to show change  Demonstrates inter-rater reliability: two different staff members would score the same offender reaching the same / similar scores  Is valid for all offender types regardless of gender, ethnicity, race, offense type, state, region or country

Informed Re-Entry / Reintegration Plan DECREASED RECIDIVISM Treatment Plan * Appropriate Placement and Services * Review & Revise Valid, Reliable RNR Assessment Re-Assessment near end of treatment cycle Public Safety is Ensured * Cost Efficient

Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) Static Risk and Offender Needs Guide (STRONG) Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) Level of Service / Risk, Need, Responsivity (LS/RNR) Level of Service / Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) Youth Level of Service / Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI)

This project was supported by grant No RT-BX- K001 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the SMART Office, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Point of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice.

 Description: This webinar aims to help RSAT staff sharpen their clinical focus on particularly important treatment goals. We will draw distinctions between broad objectives (e.g., “begin a strong recovery,” “learn to be drug-free”) and specific and measurable goals that represent foundational achievements of sustainable recovery and that can be well targeted by evidence-based approaches.