The Practical Significance of a Psychology of Criminal Conduct James Bonta Public Safety Canada...

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



Family/Marital




Criminal History




Crime

Gender

Age

Ethnicity

Criminalconduct

GPCSL and the Need Principle

Assess and target criminogenic needs



Family/Marital




Criminal History




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.

The Practical Significance of a Psychology of Criminal Conduct James Bonta Public Safety Canada...

Documents

Transcript of The Practical Significance of a Psychology of Criminal Conduct James Bonta Public Safety Canada...