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
4th 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
 RISK

NEED

RESPONSIVITY
 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
• 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”

Patterns in Risk Level & Tx Intensity
Offender % Recidivism: Impact on Authors of
RISK LEVEL Tx BY RISK LEVEL RECIDIVISM Study
Minimum Intensive

Low Risk 16% 22% ( 6%) O’Donnell et al.,

1971
High Risk 78% 56% ( 22%)

Low Risk 3% 10% ( 7%) Baird et al.,

1979
High Risk 37% 18% ( 19%)

Low Risk 12% 17% ( 5%) Andrews & Kiessling,

1980
High Risk 58% 31% ( 27%)

Low Risk 12% 29% ( 17%) Andrews & Friesen,

1987
High Risk 92% 25% ( 67%)

•Some studies combined intensive Tx with supervision or other services

Compiled from: Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J., Hoge, R.D. (1990). Classification
14 for Effective Rehabilitation: Rediscovering Psychology. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 17: 19.
Bonta, J et al., 2000. A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program., Vol. 27 No 3:312-329.
Criminal Justice and Behavior

Recent Study of Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision

in Canada
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Treatment Non-Treatment
High Risk 31.6 51.1
Low Risk 32.3 14.5
Bonta, J. et al, 2000. A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program. Vol. 27 No 3:317 – 329. Criminal
Justice and Behavior
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.

16
Risk Principle tells us WHO to target …

… 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
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.
 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 Low Risk offenders
need MORE treatment need LESS treatment
and supervision to and supervision to
DECREASE their DECREASE their
likelihood of likelihood of
recidivism 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 Attitudes 5. 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 Behavior 7. Lack of Pro-social Leisure Activity
8. Substance Abuse
Risk Principle tells us WHO to target …
Need Principle tells us WHAT to target …
… 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
40
35
Decrease
30
25
20
Recidivism

15 Residential
10 Community

5
0
-5 0 1 2 3
Increase
-10
# of Principles Adhered to in Treatment
-15
Source: Adopted from Andrews and Bonta (2006). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (4th). Newark:
LexisNexis.
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
Valid, Reliable
RNR Treatment Plan
Assessment *
Appropriate
Placement and
Services
Re-Assessment
*
near end of
Review & Revise
treatment cycle
Informed
Public Safety Re-Entry /
is Ensured Reintegration
* Plan
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. 2010-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.