PRESIDENT’S LETTER ASSOCIATION ACTIVITIES …...2613 N. Guadalupe St. Seguin, TX 78155...

PRESIDENT’S LETTER

ASSOCIATION ACTIVITIES AND INFORMATION

WHAT ARE CRIMINOGENIC NEEDS AND WHY ARE THEY IMPORTANT?

by Dr. Edward J. Latessa

THREE PHASES OF JUVENILE RISK ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT: IMPRESSIONISTIC,

ACTUARIAL AND HOLISTICby Dr. Jason Clark-Miller

RISK/NEEDS ASSESSMENTS FOR YOUTHSPrepared by Development Services Group, Inc. Washington,

D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention

RECONSIDERING THE RESPONSIVITY PRINCIPLE: A WAY TO MOVE FORWARD

by Dr. Guy Bourgon and Dr. James Bonta

ARE WE REALLY TALKING ABOUT COACHING?by Cinthya Serrato, B.A.

NEWS FROM THE FIELD

Winter Journal of the texas Probation association

SPECIAL EDITION ON RISK, NEEDS, RESPONSIVITY AND RELATED ISSUES

TEXAS PROBATIONVolume IV Number 1 Winter Special

board of directors

President:Caroline RickawayP.O. Box 1300Angleton, TX 77515979-864-2145

Vice President:Chris Thomas121 North Austin Rm 301Jasper, TX 75951409-224-7151

Treasurer:Roxane MarekP.O. Box 786Wharton, TX 77488979-532-7474 Secretary:Karma Chambless2200 7th StreetBay City TX 77414979-245-6512

Parliamentarian:Ed Cockrell5326 Hwy 69 SouthBeaumont, TX 77705PH: 409-722-7474 Juvenile Discipline: Lisa Tomlinson1102 East Kilpatrick Cleburne, TX 76031817-556-6880

At Large:Randy Turner2701 Kimbo RdFort Worth, TX 76111817-838-4600

Adult Discipline: Arnold K. PatrickP.O. Box 970Edinburg, TX 78540956-587-6000

Juvenile Discipline:Iris Bonner-Lewis1200 CongressHouston, TX 77002713-394-4340

At Large:Dan Collins2613 N. Guadalupe St.Seguin, TX 78155830-303-1274

Adult Discipline:Steve Henderson701 Main StreetLubbock, TX 79401806-755-1200

Juvenile Discipline:Edeska Barnes Jr.121 North Austin A101Jasper, TX 75951 409-384-9063

At Large:Billie Jean BramP.O. Box 3038Wharton, TX 77488979-532-2465

Adult Discipline:Bradley Wilburn114 Hurst St.Center, TX 75935936-591-4171 Secretariat:Tiaya EllisSam Houston State UniversityHuntsville, TX 77341936-294-3073

Alumni Board Member:Acie Berry512-635-3088

Texas Probation is published quarterly (Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall) by Sam Houston Press and Copy Center in Huntsville, Texas, for the Texas Probation Association. The contents of articles or other materials contained in Texas Probation do not reflect the endorsements, official attitudes, or positions of the Texas Probation Association or the George J. Beto Criminal Justice Center at Sam Houston State University unless so stated. Articles may be reproduced without charge as long as permission is obtained from the editor and credit is given to both the author and Texas Probation.

CONTENTS

PRESIDENT’S LETTER .................................................................................................... 1

ASSOCIATION ACTIVITIES AND INFORMATION ....................................................... 2

TPA NOMINATIONS .......................................................................................................... 2

TPA ELECTIONS ................................................................................................................ 3

ARTICLES

What are Criminogenic Needs and Why are they Important?By: Dr. Edward J. Latessa ...............................................................................................6

Three Phases of Juvenile Risk Assessment Development: Impressionistic, Actuarial, and Holisticby Dr. Jason Clark-Miller ................................................................................................8

Risk/Needs Assessments for Youthby Development Services Group, Inc. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention .................................................................................................. 10

Reconsidering the Responsivity Principle: A Way to Move Forwardby Dr. Guy Bourgon and Dr. James Bonta .................................................................... 16

Are We Really Talking about Coaching? by Cinthya Serrato ..........................................................................................................27

NEWS FROM THE FIELD ............................................................................................. 29

Volume IV, No. 1 TEXAS PROBATION 1

and even though the Texas Legislature isn’t in session this year, our lobbyists and Legislative Committee Co-Chairs are reviewing interim charges, gathering information and attending hearings on behalf of the members of TPA. I encourage all members to contact the legislative co-chairs with questions or concerns about legislative issues.

The individual members of TPA are the most important assets of the association. I invite you to join TPA or renew your membership, become a committee member and/or attend a conference and become a LEADER! Working collaboratively we have, and will, continue to advance the field of community corrections in a positive direction.

Thank you for your support of the Texas Probation Association and I look forward to seeing you in San Marcos!

Caroline RickawayTPA President

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

Welcome to the 2016 winter issue of Texas Probation. I hope the New Year is off to a good start for everyone. As the year begins I’m looking forward to the TPA 2016 Annual Conference in San Marcos, April 17 – 20. The 2016 Annual Conference Planning Committee has been working diligently to put together an interesting agenda and an array of entertaining activities for the upcoming conference. Please plan to join us at the Embassy Suites, San Marcos, Texas, for educational workshops, networking with your peers and enjoying the Texas Hill Country.

We have an outstanding group of nominees for the open TPA Board of Director positions. Please review the nominees and remember to vote for the one contested Board position. The current slate of candidates who are nominated for the TPA Board are profiled in this issue of Texas Probation. I want to thank each of the candidates for their commitment to our association and the work of community corrections. Nominations are also open for the TPA Awards categories which are described in this issue of the journal. I challenge all to consider nominating a colleague or co-worker who is well-deserving of recognition for one of the awards. Nominating a member for an award is a wonderful way to celebrate the successes of our colleagues and our association. The election results and award recipients will be announced at the Annual Conference Luncheon in April.

I am excited about this issue of Texas Probation which includes several research-based articles on risk/needs assessments in the juvenile and adult community justice disciplines. These authors are known world-wide for their innovative contributions to current transformative initiatives in the criminal justice system. Read on to examine the nuts and bolts of current empirical literature on risk, needs and responsivity. In addition, an article about coaching includes insightful input from Texas community supervision officers, and News from the Field highlights the activities of some local superheroes.

Recently, several TPA members have stepped up to fill positions as co-chairs and members of the various TPA committees. Some of our leaders in TPA are transitioning to retirement and other endeavors, and we are welcoming new faces to step in and fill the gaps. I also want to recognize our alumni members who have remained involved as leaders in the association. Our committees are currently working to prepare for the Annual Conference

2 TEXAS PROBATION Volume IV, No.1

ASSOCIATION ACTIVITIES AND INFORMATION

Annual ConferenceApril 17-20, 2016 Embassy Suites - San Marcos

Legislative ConferenceAugust 14-17, 2016Embassy Suites - Frisco

TPA NOMINATIONS

Charles W. Hawkes Lifetime Achievement Award —The Charles W. Hawkes Lifetime Achievement Award, the Association’s highest honor, is presented in memory of the late Charles W. Hawkes, a past President of the Texas Probation Association and the former Chief Probation Officer for Jefferson County. This award, created in 1998, is presented to a member of the Association for a lifetime of service to the probation association.

Judge Terry L. Jacks Award—This award, named in memory of the late Terry L. Jacks, a District Judge and an original member of the Texas Probation Commission, is presented to an adult line officer who has made significant contributions to the community corrections profession.

Amador R. Rodriguez Award—The Amador R. Rodriguez Award, formerly known as the Outstanding Juvenile Administrator Award, is named in memory of the late Amador R. Rodriguez, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer for Cameron County and a past President of the Texas Probation Association, and recognizes an outstanding administrator from the juvenile discipline.

Roy H. Williams Award—This is a new award created in 2005 in honor of Texas Probation Association past-president and retired operations manager of the Dallas County CSCD, Roy Williams. It recognizes an adult or juvenile probation professional

for significant, long-standing contributions to the Texas Probation Association.

Brian J. Kelly Award—The Brian J. Kelly Award is presented to an adult administrator who has significantly contributed to the profession and/or Association. Nominees are evaluated in the following areas:

1) Support of the Association through committee work, holding office, voluntary efforts and continuous or total years of membership;2) Dedicated service to the courts of a given jurisdiction;3) Development and implementation of new programs;4) Publications or research;5) Other significant factors.

Clara Pope-Willoughby Award—This award, named in memory of the late Clara Pope-Willoughby, an advocate for juveniles and persons in need of services, is presented to a juvenile line officer who has made significant contributions to the juvenile justice system.

Lewis Amonette Award—This award, named in memory of the late Lewis “Butch” Amonette, Chief Juvenile Probation Officer for Pecos County, was initially named the Ace Award. The award is given to a probation professional who has both administrative duties and supervises a caseload. Typically persons from small departments are selected for this award.

For a number of years the Texas Probation Association has recognized its members who have contributed to the organization and to the community corrections profession. Listed below you will find a brief description of each award. The deadline for nominations is March 4, 2016.

UPCOMING CONFERENCES

2016 TPA Awards nominations are to be submitted via mail or email to Will Hurley, Matagorda County CSCD (321 East Milam, Wharton, TX 77488; [email protected]) or Latricia Coleman, Jefferson County JPD (5326 Hwy. 69 S., Beaumont, TX 77705; [email protected])


TPA ELECTIONS

TPA members will be receiving ballots for the upcoming election. The positions up for election and the nominations are as follows:

Adult Discipline: Mike Wolfe, Taylor County CSCDJuvenile Discipline: Lisa Tomlinson, Johnson County JPDAt large (1 yr.): Dan Collins, Guadalupe County JPDAt large (3 yr.): Roger Arredondo, Hidalgo County CSCD Randy Turner, Tarrant County JPD

Adult DisciplineMike WolfeDirector of Taylor, Callahan, and Coleman County CSCD

Mike Wolfe is Director of Taylor, Callahan and Coleman County Community Supervision and Corrections Department in Abilene, Texas, a position he was appointed to in October 2004. Since coming to Taylor County CSCD, he has been active in probation at the state level, serving on the Probation Advisory Committee since 2005 as a member, Vice Chairman and most recently as Chairman. Mike was appointed by the Lieutenant Governor to the Texas State Council for Interstate Adult Offender Supervision. In addition, Mike has been active in the Texas Probation Association since 2005, serving on the Legislative Committee since 2007 and testifying for the PAC and TPA at numerous Legislative Committee hearings. Prior to joining Taylor County CSCD, Mike served as Deputy Director of Texas Parole Division, Chief of Staff of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, and Deputy Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections. Mike graduated from Sam Houston State University with a Degree in Criminology/Corrections.


TPA ELECTIONS

At Large (1 yr.)Dan Collins Deputy Chief of Guadalupe County JPD

Dan Collins is a Christian husband and father, and has worked continuously in juvenile justice for over 24 years. Having graduated from Texas A&M University with a degree in Sociology, he began his career in the juvenile justice field in 1992 as a juvenile detention officer in Guadalupe County. He subsequently moved up to work as a regular juvenile probation officer, and then as an ISP officer. From 1996 to 2002, Dan worked for the Texas Youth Commission, serving first as a parole officer, and later as a quality assurance specialist, doing training and casework audits in TYC’s southern service area. In 1999 he was recognized as the service area’s Outstanding Staff Member. In 2002, Dan returned to Guadalupe County to work as the Juvenile Detention Superintendent, and since then served as Assistant Chief of Field Services, and in his current role as Deputy Chief.

Mr. Collins is a member of the American Probation & Parole Association, has been a TPA member since 2002, and has worked on six Conference Planning committees. He has been a TPA Board member since 2011. Dan has also served on the Board of Directors for The Activity Center of Seguin & Guadalupe County, the Guadalupe County Children’s Lodge emergency shelter, and as a charter board member of the Seguin Youth Services prevention program. He is the current Lay Leader at First United Methodist Church of New Braunfels, and is a Team Leader for the Texas Ramp Project in both Guadalupe and Comal Counties. Dan has been married 20 years to his wife, Amanda, who works as a school nurse at Canyon High School. They are blessed with two girls and two boys, ranging from 6 to 16 years old.

Juvenile DisciplineLisa TomlinsonDirector of Juvenile Services/Chief Juvenile Probation Officer Johnson and Somervell Counties

Lisa graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Criminal Justice from Southeastern Oklahoma State University in 1988. She began her career in 1988 in Grayson County as a juvenile probation officer. Lisa served in that capacity for 5 years before becoming the Deputy Director of the Juvenile Detention facility in 1993. In that position she was responsible for the day to day operations of the Juvenile Detention facility. While Deputy Director of Detention Lisa was involved in the Texas Juvenile Detention Association and served as a Board Member with the Association for 5 years. Lisa served as the Detention Superintendent for 7 years before accepting the position of Chief Juvenile Probation Officer in Johnson County in May of 2000. In 2004 Lisa accepted the additional position as the Chief Juvenile Probation Officer for Somervell County and has been proudly serving both counties ever since.

Lisa has been married to David Tomlinson for 26 years and is looking forward to many more years. They have two children Rebecca and Caleb. They also have 4 grandchildren that they lovingly refer to as “grandmonsters.”

Since becoming a JPO, Lisa has always been committed to the county that she has lived and/or served in. She serves on numerous boards and committees and is always watchful of ways to enhance services for the families and youth that come through the system. She continues to be dedicated to the field of Juvenile Justice in serving on the Board and the Legislative Committee for the Texas Probation Association. This is really a love for her in that she likes reviewing the bills that are filed, seeing what impact they will have on the field, and talking to state leaders about the importance of what we do in our field. Lisa believes in Juvenile Justice and hopes that through the process of time and transition that the child will not be what is lost.


TPA ELECTIONS

At Large (3 yr.)Roger Arredondo, Jr.Assistant Director of Hidalgo County CSCD

Roger Arredondo, Jr. is currently the Deputy Director of the Hidalgo County Community Supervision and Corrections Department. He received a Bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justice from the University of Texas Pan American in 1999. Before coming to Hidalgo County CSCD he worked as a juvenile probation officer with Webb County. He was an intake officer and subsequently a court officer. Mr. Arredondo had a passion for working with kids, which led him to work as a teacher’s assistant for six years with special education children. This was where he fell in love with probation after he observed probation officers coming to the school to conduct visits with his students.

Mr. Arredondo came to Hidalgo County CSCD in June of 2000 as a community supervision officer. He served as a court and sex offender officer and then became the pre-sentence investigator for the 206th District Court. He was promoted to supervisor in December of 2006 and became the Director of Court Services by 2011. His hard work and dedication made him Deputy Director by January of 2013, a position in which he still serves. He is an active member of Texas Probation Association, Texas Association of Drug Court Professionals, National Association of Drug Court Professionals, National Association of Pretrial Services and Texas Corrections Association.

At Large (3 yr.)Randy TurnerDirector of Juvenile Services/Chief Juvenile Probation Officer Tarrant County

Mr. Randy Turner has extensive experience in the juvenile justice system, with over 40 years of service, including state-level juvenile corrections, juvenile probation/detention/residential services, private non-profit community-based services, and secure residential care. Most recently, Randy has served as the Chief Juvenile Probation Officer for Tarrant County since 2005, and even though retiring in June 2016, will continue to be involved in juvenile justice-related activities in the State. He has a B.S. degree from Howard Payne University, and a M.A. from Sam Houston State University.

Randy has served in leadership and committee roles in several professional organizations, including the following: Texas Probation Association, Texas Correctional Association, Colorado Juvenile Council, Juvenile Justice Association of Texas, and the American Correctional Association. He currently serves as a juvenile justice representative on the TPA Board and on the juvenile legislative committee, and has served as the co-chair for the 2013 Legislative Conference committee. He has been actively involved in legislative activities to represent the field of juvenile justice, and has worked closely with TJJD over the past several years, including serving on the Advisory Council. Randy looks forward to continuing his role on the TPA Board and to providing support for the work of Texas probation professionals.


ARTICLES

What are Criminogenic Needs and Why are they Important? By Dr. Edward J. Latessa

Edward J. Latessa received his Ph.D. from Ohio State University in 1979 as is Director and Professor of the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. Dr. Latessa has published over 150 works in the area of criminal justice, corrections and juvenile justice. He has directed over 150 funded research projects including studies of day reporting centers, juvenile justice programs, drug courts, prison programs, intensive supervision programs, halfway houses, and drug programs. In 2009 Dr. Latessa received the George Beto Scholar Award from Sam Houston State University’s College of Criminal Justice.

Over the years, a great deal of research has been conducted on offenders, correctional sanctions, and correctional programs—literally hundreds of studies have tried to better identify the risk factors correlated with criminal conduct. Sifting through and reading this literature is a daunting challenge, but fortunately quite a bit of research has been done not only to identify risk factors, but also to determine which are the strongest. Research by Andrews, Bonta, Gendreau and others have identified six major risk factors associated with criminal conduct: antisocial/procriminal attitudes, values, and beliefs; procriminal associates; temperament and personality factors; a history of antisocial behavior; family factors; and low levels of educational, vocational or financial achievement.

If we look carefully at these areas we can see that some can be influenced or changed while others cannot. Those that cannot be changed are called “static.” Examples include prior record or family criminality. Early onset of criminal behavior is a very good predictor of future behavior, and it is a risk factor that cannot be changed: if you were first arrested at age ten you will always have been first arrested at age ten. Similarly, if your father is in prison it may help explain why you are in trouble (i.e. social learning), but the fact that your father is in prison cannot be changed.

Those factors that can be changed are called “dynamic.” They include factors like who an offender hangs around with, offenders’ attitudes and values, their lack of problem solving skills, their substance use, and their employment status. All these are correlated with recidivism, and all

can be targeted for change. These dynamic factors are also called criminogenic needs: crime producing factors that are strongly correlated with risk.

We can compare this to the risk factors associated with having a heart attack. Your risk can be heightened by your age (over 50), sex (males), family history of heart problems, high blood pressure, being overweight, lack of exercise, stress, smoking, and high cholesterol. Some of these factors are static and others are dynamic. To understand your risk you would factor in all of them; to affect—and lower—your risk you would focus on the dynamic ones.

Applying the same logic to effective correctional intervention we come up with the need principle as a way to choose the “what” to target for change in an offender—namely, dynamic factors or criminogenic needs that are highly correlated with criminal conduct. Programs should assess and target crime producing needs, such as anti-social attitudes, anti-social peer associations, substance abuse, lack of empathy, lack of problem solving and self-control skills, and other factors that are highly correlated with criminal conduct. Furthermore, programs need to ensure that the vast majority of their interventions are focused on these factors.

Such a focus produces results. Figure 1 shows the result from a “meta-analysis”—a quantitative review of multiple studies that combines their data. Programs that concentrate more on non-criminogenic areas have small to slightly negative effects (i.e. they may slightly increase recidivism!), while programs that target at least four to six criminogenic


needs can reduce recidivism by 30 percent.

It is important to note that most offenders are not high risk for recidivism because they have one risk or need factor, but rather are high risk because they have multiple risk and need factors. Programs that target only one such need may not produce the desired effects. For example, while unemployment is correlated with criminal conduct for many probationers and parolees, by itself it is not that strong of a risk factor. After all, if most of us were unemployed we would not start selling drugs or robbing people; we would simply start looking for another job. But if you think work is for someone else, if you have no problem letting someone else support you, or if you think you can make more in a day illegitimately than someone can make in a month legitimately, then being unemployed does add considerably to your risk for offending. Successful programs must address clusters of criminogenic needs that work together.

It is also important to remember that non-criminogenic factors such as self-esteem, fear of punishment, physical conditioning, understanding one’s culture or history, and creative abilities will not have much effect on recidivism rates. Unfortunately, there are a lot of programs out there that target non-criminogenic needs and as a result do not produce much effect on recidivism. Studies have shown

Figure 1: Targeting Criminogenic Need: Results from Meta-Analyses

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Target 1-3 more non-criminogenic needs

Target at least 4-6 morecriminogenic needs

Reduction in Recidivism

Increase in Recidivism

Source: Gendreau, P., French, S.A., and A.Taylor (2002). What Works (What Doesn’t Work) Revised 2002. Invited Submission to the International Community Corrections Association Monograph Series Project

References

Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta- analysis. Criminology, 28, 369 404.

Reprinted with permission from Dr. Latessa

that programs that target four to six more criminogenic risk factors than non-criminogenic risk factors can have a thirty percent or more effect on recidivism. On the other hand, programs that target more non-criminogenic risk factors have virtually no effect.

Remember, “what” you target for change is important, as is the density of those targets around crime producing needs.

References

Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369 404.

Reprinted with permission from Dr. Latessa


Three Phases of Juvenile Risk Assessment Development: Impressionistic, Actuarial and HolisticBy Dr. Jason Clark-Miller

Dr. Jason Clark-Miller received a Bachelor of Arts (1991) and Master of Arts degrees (1993) in Sociology from Baylor University. In 2004 he received a Ph.D. in Sociology with an emphasis in Criminology from Arizona State University. Dr. Clark-Miller is an Associate Professor at Tarrant County College at the Northwest Campus and was previously an Assistant Professor at Texas Christian University in the Criminal Justice Department. He is the President of the Crime Victims Council in Fort Worth, TX and a member of that organization for almost six years. Dr. Clark-Miller worked for a time in the juvenile justice profession, has written various articles, and has a certificate in GIS mapping.

A tremendous proliferation of instruments and measures used to classify juvenile risk has occurred since the 1990s when only 33% of state juvenile justice systems required formal risk assessment (Schwalbe, 2008). A cursory examination of both published and non-published literature reveals an impressive number of studies that attempt to validate risk assessment instruments with widely varying levels of success. Fortunately, systematic empirical research on the validity of various juvenile risk assessments has accelerated in recent years, including several meta-analyses of assessment methods, factors, and predictive validity (Schwalbe, 2007; Olver, Stockdale & Wormith 2009; Barnes et al., 2016). In fact, Google Scholar reports that more than one hundred articles on the subject of juvenile risk assessment have been published since 2014. The majority of those address specific instruments and methods.

Juvenile justice scholars often claim the development of risk assessment instruments moved through three phases of rigor and predictive capacity: impressionistic, actuarial and holistic. Impressionistic assessments rooted in the experiences of the juvenile justice professional and without the aid of formal assessment tools, proved ineffective for the purposes of classification and prediction (Schwalbe, 1997). The weaknesses of an impressionistic approach are well documented in the literature, but there are a rare few studies that claim when probation officers form their impressions from the same types of information that they would draw on for formal assessments, the difference between formal and impressionistic assessment is not vast as is typically assumed (Upperton & Thompson, 2007).

In order to avoid the potential pitfalls and biases of an impressionistic approach, actuarial assessments were

developed to impose greater rigor on the assessment process by linking assessment measures to the statistical association between “objective” offender characteristics (such as offending history and substance abuse) and repeat offending. Researchers have demonstrated the actuarial approach can efficiently predict and classify juvenile offenders on the basis of a limited number of indicators (Schwalbe, 2007). Krysik and LeCroy (2002), for example, used an actuarial approach to create a robust assessment tool with only five indicators. Unfortunately, the actuarial approach is often compromised in its implementation when indicators are selected without careful empirical examination (such as when they are selected via consensus rather than a data-driven process) or when an agency uses an assessment tool developed for another jurisdiction without first validating the instrument for the new jurisdiction (Schwalbe, 2007).

A further limitation of the actuarial approach comes from its usual overreliance on static indicators to build a predictive index. Static indicators are those attributes of the offender, such as gender, which are unlikely to change. Because the characteristics do not change, an instrument based on static characteristics loses its ability to predict offending behavior over a longer span of time when other indicators of delinquency, such as age, are changing. Barnes et al. (2016), for example, juveniles are most often assessed when they first enter the court’s jurisdiction. While the initial assessments may be useful for classification, they do not significantly predict reoffending in the year following probation. Thus, Barnes et al. (2016) recommend that assessments include a larger array of dynamic (changing) characteristics.

Holistic assessment, what Schwalbe calls the third generation of assessments, is consistent with the Barnes’


comment. These tools forsake the brevity of an actuarial assessment in favor of the multi-item measurement strategies associated with psychometrics (Schwalbe, 2007). They also attended to the identification of risk factors that are amenable to change, and thus subject to manipulation in a case management plan (Vincent et al., 2012). Holistic instruments not only include more items, but they also reflect more complex notions about the relationships between the juvenile and his/her delinquent behavior. For example, a holistic instrument might include a multi-dimensional index to assess family functioning in addition to prior substance abuse. Holistic instruments are intended to classify level of supervision, assess the risk of reoffending, and inform intervention planning. Dolan and colleagues (2011) argue strongly for the inclusion of “multi-disciplinary assessment.” While their research is focused on risk assessment in juvenile fire-setting, their argument that a holistic assessment should include tools that reflect the interests of juvenile justice in promoting community safety and the needs of the offender in managing treatment is representative of much of the literature covering this “third generation” of assessment instruments. Holistic instruments are quickly becoming the new “gold standard” of risk assessment.

Most studies find that regardless of the instrument-type, juvenile risk assessments predict repeat offending as they are intended to. Schwalbe’s meta-analysis (2007)—a statistical technique for summarizing findings across a number of research studies—found that on average juvenile risk assessments were almost as good as their adult counterparts. He also found that holistic instruments have the highest levels of predictive validity. He suggests their improved predictive capacity is due to their reliance on multiple-indicators and more nuanced measures of the complex constructs that underlie recidivism and delinquency. Barnes et al. (2016) suggest that predicting long-term recdivism among juvenile offenders is best accomplished using an instrument specifically designed to assess change, and that juveniles should be formally assessed more frequently.

While the empirical literature on juvenile risk assessment continues to grow and numerous assessment instruments are promising, our excitement should be tempered by the recognition that many of the current holistic (third generation) validity studies currently found in the research journals have been conducted using the same samples but reported in different publications with only slight modifications to the investigative parameters. In other words, what appears to be a large number of published reports supporting a particular instrument may in fact be multiple accounts of a large, comprehensive evaluation of

its impact in one jurisdiction over a relatively short period of time.

Further tempering might be warranted on the basis of research suggesting probation officers consistently “undervalue and under-use” the results of assessment tools when crafting case management plans (Vincent et al., 2012a). Vincent and colleagues found that “comprehensive implementation practices are essential” if the benefits of assessment are to be realized (2012:400). In their view, “comprehensive” refers to training front-line workers in both the “how to” and value of assessment, mandating the use of the assessment tool for case management purposes in departmental policy, and developing a method for evaluating the adherence of the policy. Without such policies and practices in place, it is possible or even likely, that some officers would be unwilling to alter their management strategies beyond collecting the new risk assessment data (Vincent et al., 2012b).

References

Barnes, A. R., Campbell, N.A., Anderson, V. A., Campbell, C. A., Onifade, E. and Davidson, W. S. (2016). “Validity of initial, exit, and dynamic juvenile risk assessements: An examina-tion Across Gender and Race/Ethnicity.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55, 21-38.

Dolan, M., McEwan, T. E., Doley, R. and Fritzon, K. (2011). “Risk factors and risk assessment in juvenile fire-setting.” Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 18, 378-394.

Olver, Mark E., Stockdale, K.C. and Wormith, J.S. (2009). “Risk assessment with young offenders: A meta-analysis of three assessment measures.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 329-353.

Schwalbe, C. S. (2007). “Risk assessment for juvenile justice: A meta-analysis.” Law and Human Behavior, 31, 449-462.

Schwalbe, C. S. (2008). “A meta-analysis of juvenile justice risk assessment instruments: Predictive validity by gender.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1367-1381.

Upperton, R. A. and Thompson. A. P. (2007). “Predicting juvenile offender recidivism: Risk-need assessment and juvenile justice officers.” Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 14, 138-146.

Vincent, G. M., Paiva-Salisbury, M. L., Cook, N.E., Guy, L. S. and Perrault, R. T. (2012a). “Impact of risk/needs assessment on juvenile probation officers’ decision-making: Importance of implementation.” Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 18, 549-576.

Vincent, G. M., Guy, L. S., Gershenson, B. G. and McCabe, P. (2012b). “Does risk assessment make a difference? Results of implementing the SAVRY in juvenile probation.”


Risk/needs assessments are standardized tools that help practitioners collect and synthesize information about a youth to estimate that youth’s risks of recidivism and identify other factors that, if treated and changed, can reduce the youth’s likelihood of reoffending (NIJ & OJJDP 2014; Vincent, Guy, & Grisso, 2012). Risk/needs assessments are not only designed to inform and guide decisions about estimating a juvenile’s risk of recidivating. They are also helpful when creating plans for appropriate treatment or services. They allow juvenile justice professionals and practitioners to classify offenders and target limited resources to juveniles who may need intensive supervision and services (Pew Center on the States, 2011). The risk factors have generally been shown through research to be strongly associated with the likelihood that an individual will recidivate or continue to exhibit problem behavior (Pew Center on the States, 2011).

Risk/needs assessments generally consist of two components. The risk assessment component provides a way to predict the likelihood of recidivism of the youth. Recidivism is generally defined as future contact with the justice system—when the youth commits additional criminal or delinquent acts that come to the attention of law enforcement or other justice system personnel, such as a probation officer. The needs assessment component identifies factors about the youth that can be changed through individualized treatment or programming to reduce the likelihood that the youth will reoffend. Risk/needs assessment instruments generally consider static and/or dynamic risk factors (criminogenic needs factors) to determine a risk score or risk level classification (Vincent et al., 2012). Although the early generations of risk/needs assessments centered more on predicting and classifying risk levels, recent assessment instruments usually include items that estimate risks of recidivating as well as the need for treatment and other services (Schwalbe, 2008; Desmarais & Singh, 2013; NCCD 2014).

Risk/needs assessments can be used at various stages in the juvenile justice system, including diversion, adjudication, and disposition. However, the categorization of risk will depend on the stage in the system. For example, a risk/needs assessment administered when the youth first enters the justice system (at arrest or intake) can gauge whether the youth is appropriate for diversion programming, whereas

Risk/Needs Assessments for YouthsPrepared by Development Services Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

an assessment administered at disposition may guide a judge’s decision about sentencing the youth to out-of-home placement or a community-based alternative (Watcher, 2014).

Limitations of Risk/Needs Assessments

The use of risk/needs assessments in the juvenile justice system has been growing since the 1990s (Schwalbe, 2008). Risk/needs assessments are designed to incorporate more objectivity into the process of determining the possible risks of reoffending among youths who have come into contact with the justice system, and to assist in the development of individualized treatment options based on youths’ identified needs. Although risk/needs assessments attempt to take some discretion and subjectivity out of the justice system and incorporate important factors that have been shown through research to be strongly associated with delinquent or problem behaviors, there are still some important limitations to these assessments that should be taken into account.

It is critical for policymakers and practitioners to be aware of these limitations, and to consider them when selecting and implementing risk/needs assessment tools. For instance, it is important to ensure there is no measurement bias present in a risk/needs assessment that may result in different predictions of reoffending depending upon youths’ race/ethnicity, gender, age, or other demographic characteristics (Vincent et al., 2012).

Another significant concern is that the use of risk/needs assessments may contribute to the racial disparities and disproportionate minority contact (DMC) observed in the juvenile justice system. Static risk factors, such as prior criminal history or prior offenses, are included in risk/needs assessments as indicators of past offending behavior. However, research on DMC in the juvenile justice system has shown that minority youths are more likely to come into contact with and remain in the juvenile justice system, compared with white youths (Huizinga et al., 2007) (for more information on racial/ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system, see the Model Programs Guide literature review on Disproportionate Minority Contact). Furthermore, Thompson and McGrath (2012) argued that certain “socially constructed identifiers” (such as race, ethnicity, gender, age, and socioeconomic status) can


influence the processing of youths in the juvenile justice system, including what offenses youths are charged with, what diversionary options may (or may not) be available to them, and what offenses they are convicted of. Therefore, prior offenses may reflect a juvenile’s past behavior or could be an indication of the justice system’s unequal response to offending behavior of different racial groups (Jannetta, Breaux, & Ho, 2014; National Research Council, 2013).

Consequently, the number of prior arrests or prior adjudications that are considered by practitioners when administering a risk/needs assessment could impact the predicted risk level of youths and may result in youths being incorrectly classified into a higher risk level. Because of the various other factors that may affect the assessment of risk, the classification into a higher risk level could be a reflection of which youths are more likely to come into contact with the justice system again, and not necessarily which youths are more likely to reoffend. A 2013 report from the National Research Council explains:

These instruments thus provide estimates of the likelihood of detection, apprehension, and prosecution for illegal acts, not involvement in illegal activity. Given the well-documented patterns of selective law enforcement, gender differences in processing, and disproportionate minority contact (DMC), this means that risk/needs instruments might be conflating risk with ongoing biases in the juvenile justice system and enforcing the status quo in juvenile justice processing (p. 148).

However, as the report notes, further research on this particular issue and other possible unintended consequences of using risk/needs assessments is needed in the field (National Research Council, 2013).

In addition, the research on risk/needs assessments for juvenile offenders is limited when compared with adult offenders. Many of the assessment tools were initially developed for adults and later modified for juveniles. Although the literature on juvenile risk/needs assessments has grown, some of the research is limited by issues such as small sample sizes and questions with regard to external validity (i.e., an assessment tool may have differential validity in different jurisdictions) [Hannah–Moffat &Maurutto, 2003].

Definitions

There are several different components and factors involved in risk/needs assessments.

In the context of risk/needs assessment, risk refers to the likelihood that a youth will recidivate, reoffend, or

continue to engage in delinquent behavior over a specific period of time (Schwalbe, 2008). Risk/needs assessments are generally administered to youths who have come into contact with the juvenile justice system (i.e., the youths have been arrested or adjudicated for an offense).

Risk factors are characteristics of a youth or the environment surrounding the youth that increase the likelihood of engaging in delinquency. Risk factors are variables associated with problem behaviors (specifically, delinquent offending or violence). Some examples of risk factors are early onset of aggressive behavior; patterns of high family conflict; school-related problems such as truancy; gang involvement; and availability of drugs or firearms in the neighborhood (see the Model Programs Guide literature review on Risk Factors).

There are two types of risk factors: static and dynamic. Static risk factors are those historical characteristics of juveniles that cannot be changed through treatment or programming, such as the age at which the first offense was committed, history of violent behavior, and parental criminality. Dynamic risk factors are characteristics that can change over time, because of treatment or the normal developmental process (Vincent et al., 2012). Some examples are poor parenting practices, substance misuse, association with delinquent peers, and poor academic achievement.

Criminogenic needs factors are related to dynamic risk factors and refer to characteristics of the youth that, when changed, are associated with changes in risk of reoffending (Vincent et al., 2012). For example, substance use is a risk factor but can also be a criminogenic needs factor if a youth’s substance use is related to his or her delinquent behavior. If that youth’s substance use is targeted and treated properly, his or her risk to reoffend should be reduced. There are also characteristics known as non-criminogenic needs factors. These are dynamic risk factors that may indicate a need for treatment or programming for the youth; however, they are not related to delinquent behavior. Low self-esteem is a prime example of a non-criminogenic factor. Although a youth’s low self-esteem may suggest a need for counseling, it is not a risk factor for delinquency, and changing a youth’s self-esteem level will not change the likelihood of reoffending (Vincent et al., 2012).

Protective factors are characteristics of the youth or the environment surrounding the youth that interact with risk factors to reduce the odds of involvement in delinquent or criminal activities. Some examples of protective factors are the presence of caring and supportive adults in the community and at school; having a stable family; and having a positive/resilient temperament (see the Model


Programs Guide literature review on Protective Factors). Some risk/needs assessment tools take a more strengths-based approach by considering the presence of protective factors when estimating a youth’s level of risk (Vincent et al., 2012).

Responsivity factors may also be considered in risk/needs assessments. They are non-criminogenic factors that should not be considered when estimating the level of risk but which are important to consider when determining appropriate treatment and services for the youth. They are factors that may affect a youth’s ability to respond to treatment and programming, such as motivation to change, cognitive functioning, and access to transportation (Vincent et al., 2012).

Theoretical Foundation

Most risk/needs assessments are guided by the principles of the Risk–Need–Responsivity (RNR) framework. The risk principle suggests that the level of service should match the risk level of the offender, so that the highest-risk offenders receive the most intensive services and surveillance. The need principle emphasizes targeting criminogenic needs factors that are associated with criminal or delinquent behavior. The responsivity principle suggests that treatment and interventions should be guided by characteristics of the offender that may affect his or her ability to respond and change (such as learning style or motivation) [Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990; Vincent et al., 2012].

Approaches to Administering Risk/Needs Assessments

There are two approaches to administering risk/needs assessments: the actuarial approach and the structured professional judgment approach. The actuarial approach involves scoring items related to reoffending from an assessment tool, then weighting and summing the items. A statistical formula is then used to calculate a total risk score. The risk score is cross-referenced with an actuarial table that provides an estimate of risk over a specified timeframe, such as 5 or 10 years. The estimate is based on the number of individuals who received the same risk score and recidivated during the development of the assessment tool. As Desmarais and Singh explain: [I]f an offender receives a score of +5 on an instrument which is translated into a risk estimate of 60 percent over 10 years, this means that 60 percent of those individuals who received a score of +5 in the instrument’s original study went on to recidivate within that time. This does not mean that the offender has a 60 percent chance of recidivating over a period of 10 years.” [2013, 5] There is usually little room for practitioners

and professionals to use their discretion when calculating risk using the actuarial approach, though there may be an override option available (NIJ & OJJDP, 2014; Vincent et al., 2012).

Under the structured professional judgment approach, practitioners consider risk factors that are related to delinquency or reoffending as well as other factors that may be unique to the juvenile being assessed. The practitioner determines what risk factors to consider and how they should be measured, and then categorizes the level of risk. The process involves more discretion when estimating risk (NIJ & OJJDP, 2014; Vincent et al., 2012). A total risk score may be calculated, but when making a final judgment, the practitioner administering the assessment can consider the relevance of items to an individual youth as well as any other factors specific to the youth that may not be on the list (Desmarais & Singh, 2013).

Risk Levels

Risk/needs assessments generally categorize youth into one of three levels of risk: low risk, moderate risk, or high risk. Low risk means youths are unlikely to reoffend or engage in delinquent behavior in the near future. Generally, youths who are low risk do not need the number of services or the supervision those moderate- or high-risk youths may require. However, “low risk” does not indicate “no risk.” Youths who are categorized as low risk are unlikely to recidivate, but there is still a chance they could commit a crime or delinquent act (Vincent et al., 2012).

Conversely, youths who are high risk are those with a greater likelihood of committing a crime or reoffending in the near future if they do not receive appropriate services and supervision. Moderate risk is neither low nor high risk. It is unclear whether moderate-risk youths require the same services and supervision as high-risk youths, but they may need more attention than low-risk youths (Vincent et al., 2012). The three risk categories do not provide specific probabilities that youth will reoffend. The terms are relative, meaning juveniles are considered at a specific risk to recidivate when compared with other juveniles in similar situations. For example, a juvenile offender categorized as high risk during disposition is at greater risk to recidivate when compared with a low-risk juvenile offender in the disposition stage (Vincent et al., 2012).

Examples of Risk/Needs Assessments

There are several different risk/needs assessments available to juvenile justice practitioners. Some assessments target the general population of juvenile offenders,


whereas others center on estimating risk for specific juvenile populations (such as juvenile sex offenders) or specific delinquent or offending behaviors (such as violent offending). When looking at the various types of risk assessment tools used in juvenile justice systems across the United States, Watcher (2014) found that there were more than 20 different tools being implemented statewide. Below are three examples of risk/needs assessments that illustrate the variety of formats that assessment tools can take. The Youth Level of Services/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) is an example of an assessment instrument that estimates a youth’s risk of recidivating and need for services based on a variety of factors. The Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument (YASI) is an example of an instrument that includes a Prescreen section that identifies moderate- or high-risk youths, who are then administered the full assessment. The Structure Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) is an example of an assessment designed to estimate the risk of youth committing a specific offending behavior (in this instance, violent acts).

Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. The YLS/CMI is a 42-item risk/needs assessment measure developed specifically for youth. It was designed to assess a juvenile offender’s risk level, identify criminogenic needs that may be targeted by treatment or program services, and inform decisions regarding community supervision and case management (Bechtel, Lowenkamp, & Latessa, 2007; Olver & Stockdale, 2012). The YLS/CMI is based on measures from the Level of Service Inventory, which is a risk/need assessment for adults that links offender risk assessment, treatment, and case management. The assessment measures eight domains associated with a juvenile offender’s criminogenic risk and needs, including prior and current offenses/adjudications; family circumstances and parenting issues; education and employment; peer relations; substance abuse; leisure and recreation; personality and behavior; and attitudes and orientation. The total score ranges from 0 to 42. A score of 0 to 8 classifies youth as low risk, a score from 9 to 22 classifies youth as moderate risk, a score of 23 to 34 classifies youth as high risk, and a score of 35 to 42 classifies youth as very high risk (Bechtel et al., 2007).

Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument. The YASI is a risk, needs, and strengths assessment tool developed for use in a juvenile justice setting. The Prescreen version of YASI includes 33 static and dynamic items that classify a youth’s level of risk as low, moderate, or high. The Prescreen also provides an overall protective factor rating of low, moderate, and high. Youths classified as moderate or high risk are administered the Full Assessment. The Full Assessment consists of 88 items across 10 domains: legal history, family, school, community and peers, alcohol

and drugs, mental health, aggression/violence, attitudes, skills, and employment/use of free time (Baird et al., 2013). The YASI assessment is based on reviewing the juvenile’s official criminal record, conducting a semi-structured interview with the youth, and looking at any information from additional sources such as family, service agencies, police, and school officials (Orbis Partners, Inc., 2011).

Structure Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth. The SAVRY is a risk assessment designed to assess violence risk in adolescents. It includes 24 items in three risk domains: historical risk factors, social/contextual risk factors, and individual/clinical factors. All of the risk items are rated on a three-point scale. The SAVRY also includes six protective factor items, which are rated as present or absent. Some of the items included on the SAVRY are violence history, poor school achievement, peer delinquency, risk taking/impulsivity, and substance abuse (Meyers and Schmidt 2008). SAVRY uses a structured professional judgment approach and guides practitioners to make informed decisions about a juvenile’s risk for future violence or violent offending (low, moderate, or high). The SAVRY also identifies dynamic risk factors that can help guide treatment and intervention planning (Meyers & Schmidt, 2008).

Outcome Evidence

Risk/needs assessments are studied using methods different from those used to examine the effectiveness of programs or interventions. The validity and reliability of the assessments are important to ensure that the estimated levels of risk and treatment needs of youth are accurate and appropriate.

Interrater-reliability testing ensures that different practitioners would reach the same conclusions about a youth’s risk level when assessing the same case information (Baird et al., 2013). Interrater reliability measures the consistency among different practitioners administering an assessment instrument and can be examined by looking at different standardized measures of agreement, such as a kappa value or intra-class correlation coefficient.

Validity is the extent to which a risk/needs assessment measures what it is supposed to measure. The classification of a youth’s level of risk should be measured with items related to recidivism. Examining the predictive validity is important to ensure that a juvenile’s risk is accurately categorized as low, moderate, or high (Baird et al., 2013). Similarly, studying the equity of risk/needs assessment is also important to make sure that all youths are assessed uniformly and that some youths are not unfairly assessed because of factors such as gender or race/ethnicity (Baird


et al., 2013).

A study conducted by the National Council on Crime & Delinquency evaluated commonly used risk assessments in juvenile justice by examining their predictive validity, reliability, equity, and cost (Baird et al., 2013). Some of the evaluated instruments were the YASI, the YLS/CMI, and the Positive Achievement Change Tool. With regard to interrater reliability, the results showed a high percentage of agreement among workers administering the assessment instruments. Static risk factors, such as prior delinquency history, showed higher levels of interrater agreement than dynamic factors, especially for more subjective measures such as youth attitudes. There were mixed results with regard to the validity and equity of the risk assessments. Some assessment instruments were shown to be very accurate at categorizing juvenile cases as low, moderate, and high risk, whereas others did not provide a distinction among the risk categories. The authors of the evaluation suggested that “limiting factors on a risk assessment to those with a strong, significant relationship to outcomes will result in a more accurate risk classification” (Baird et al., 2013, iv) and that instruments using a straightforward actuarial approach generally do better than those with more complicated approaches.

Conclusions

Risk/needs assessments are important tools to help juvenile justice practitioners assess, classify, and treat juvenile offenders. There are some aspects of risk/needs assessments that policymakers and practitioners should consider when selecting an appropriate instrument to implement. For instance, to reduce juveniles’ likelihood of committing future crimes or delinquent acts, risk/needs assessments should center on factors that are strongly associated with reoffending (Flores, Travis, & Latessa, 2003). Risk/needs assessments should be well designed, validated, reliable, and based on principles identified through research as important to reducing offenders’ recidivism and ensuring public safety, such as the RNR framework (Andrews et al., 1990; Pew Center on the States, 2011).

Moreover, even if an assessment instrument is shown to have high predictive validity, interrater reliability, and equity, it is important to note that there is no one-size-fits-all assessment tool available (Pew Center on the States, 2011). There are still limitations to their use, and the particular population of juvenile offenders that will be assessed by the instrument should be taken into account, as not all risk/needs assessments predict risk accurately for all populations. For example, assessments may (via inherent

bias of the instrument or a complicated mixture of social and individual factors) perpetuate the disproportionate contact of racial minorities or inaccurately assess certain offending groups, such as juvenile sex offenders. Juvenile sex offenders should be evaluated with a psychological evaluation or specialized risk assessment, such as the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol II. Juveniles who commit sexual offenses may score low on some risk/needs assessments with regard to risk of general reoffending, whereas their risk of sexual reoffending is actually high but not captured on the assessment tool (Vincent et al., 2012).

For more information about selecting and implementing risk/needs assessments for juvenile populations, please see the guidebook developed by Models for Change titled Risk Assessment in Juvenile Justice: A Guidebook for Implementation (Vincent et al., 2012).

References

Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J. and Hoge, R.D. (1990). “Classification for Effective Rehabilitation: Rediscovering Psychology.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17:19–52.

Baird, C., Healy, T., Johnson, K., Bogie, A., Dankert, E. and Scharenbroch, C. (2013). A Comparison of Risk Assessment Instruments in Juvenile Justice. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).

Bechtel, K., Lowenkamp, C. T., and Latessa, E. J.. 2007. “As-sessing the Risk of Reoffending for Juvenile Offenders Using the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 45(¾):85–108.

Desmarais, S.L. and Singh, J.P. (2013). Risk Assessment Instru-ments Validated and Implemented in Correctional Settings in the United States. Washington, D.C.:Council of State Governments, Justice Center.

Flores, A. W., Travis, L.F., Latessa, E.J. (2003). Case Classifica-tion for Juvenile Corrections: An Assessment of the Youth Level of Services/Case Management Inventory. Cincinnati, Ohio: University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice, Center for Criminal Justice Research.

Hannah–Moffat, K. and Maurutto, P. (2003). Youth Risk/Need Assessment: An Overview of Issues and Practices. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto, Department of Sociology. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/yj-jj/rr03_yj4-rr03_jj4/rr03_yj4.pdf

Holder, E. (2014). “Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 57th Annual Meeting and 13th State Criminal Justice Network


Conference.” Philadelphia, Pa., Aug. 1. http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2014/ag-speech-140801.html

Huizinga, D., Thornberry, T., Knight, K., Lovegrove, P. (2007.) Disproportionate Minority Contact in the Juvenile Justice System: A Study of Differential Minority Arrest/Referral to Court in Three Cities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, OJJDP.

Jannetta, J., Breaux, J. and Ho, H. (2014). “Could Risk As-sessment Contribute to Racial Disparity in the Justice Sys-tem?” MetroTrends Blog, Urban Institute. http://blog.metrotrends.org/2014/08/risk-assessment-contribute-racial-disparity-justice-system/?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=UI%20Update&utm_content=August+2014+-+3rd+Thursday, Aug. 11.

Meyers, J.R., and Schmidt, F. (2008). “Predictive Validity of the Structured Assessment for Violence Risk in Youth With Juvenile Offenders.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(3):344–55.

NCCD (National Council on Crime & Delinquency). (2014). NCCD Compares Juvenile Justice Risk Assessment Instru-ments: A Summary of the OJJDP–Funded Study. San Diego, Calif. NIJ and OJJDP (National Institute of Justice and Of-fice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention). 2014. Prediction and Risk/Needs Assessment. Justice Research. Washington, D.C.

National Research Council. (2013). Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach. Richard J. Bonnie, Robert L. Johnson, Betty M. Chemers, and Julie A. Schuck (eds.). The

Committee on Assessing Juvenile Justice Reform. Washing-ton, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

Olver, M. E., and Stockdale, K. C. (2012). “Short- and Long-Term Prediction of Recidivism Using the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory in a Sample of Serious Young Offenders.” Law and Human Behavior, 36(4):331–44.

Orbis Partners, Inc. 2011. Validation of the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument for Use by the Vermont Department for Children and Families. Ottawa, Ontario.

Pew Center on the States. 2011. Risk/Needs Assessment 101: Sci-ence Reveals New Tools to Manage Offenders. Washington, D.C.

Schwalbe, C. S. (2008). A Meta-Analysis of Juvenile Justice Risk Assessment Instruments: Predictive Validity by Gender.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(11):1367–81.

Thompson, Anthony P., and Andrew McGrath. 2012. “Subgroup Differences and Implications for Contemporary Risk-Need

Assessment with Juvenile Offenders.” Law and Human Be-havior, 36(4):345–55.

Vincent, Gina M., Laura S. Guy, and Thomas Grisso. 2012. Risk Assessment in Juvenile Justice: A Guidebook for Implementation. New York, N.Y.: Models for Change. http://modelsforchange.net/publications/346

Watcher, Andrew. 2014. Statewide Risk Assessment in Juvenile Probation. JJGPS StateScan. Pittsburgh, Pa.: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

This article was reprinted from the OJJDP website. Refer-ence: Development Services Group, Inc. 2015. “Risk and Needs Assessment for Youths.” Literature Review. Wash-ington, DC.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/RiskandNeeds.pdf

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under Contract #2013–JF–FX–K002.


Reconsidering the Responsivity Principle: A Way to Move ForwardBy Dr. Guy Bourgon and Dr. James Bonta

Dr. Guy Bourgon is a clinical psychologist with a specialization in correctional and criminal justice psychology. He has more than 25 years of clinical experience in the assessment and treatment of adults and youths involved in the criminal justice system. Dr. Bourgon is presently a Senior Researcher for Public Safety Canada conducting research on effective correctional services and practices. As the co-lead on the Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision, he played a significant role in the development of its community supervision model, the training of probation officers and their clinical supervision, as well as the evaluation of the Risk-Need-Responsivity approach to offender supervision. Dr. Bourgon maintains a private practice, is an adjunct professor at Carleton University, and is a member of the Editorial Board of Criminal Justice and Behavior.

Dr. James Bonta is the Director of Corrections Research, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in Ottawa, Canada. He received his Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Ottawa. Dr. Bonta has written many articles, book chapters, books and manuals, and has presented many papers at professional conferences in Canada and the United States. He is co-developer, with Professor Don Andrews, of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R), an assessment instrument that is used in various jurisdictions to help target treatment to offenders. Dr. Bonta is a Fellow of the Canadian Psychological Association (2002) and was honored with the Exemplary Service Award, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (2006).

The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model has arguably become the premier model of offender assessment and rehabilitation (Cullen, 2012; Ogloff & Davis, 2004; Polaschek, 2012). The RNR model made its published debut in 1990 (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990), with the first empirical test of the principles published a few months later (Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendreau, & Cullen, 1990). In the Andrews, Bonta and Hoge paper, four principles were presented with respect to offender treatment. The first three principles dealt with the who, what, and how of offender rehabilitation. The risk principle stated that the intensity of treatment should be matched to the risk level of the offender, with the greatest amount of treatment services being directed to the higher-risk offender. The need principle dictated that treatment goals should be the criminogenic needs that are functionally related to criminal behavior. The responsivity principle directed service providers to use cognitive-behavioral techniques to bring about change while being attentive to individual factors such as personality, gender, and motivation. The fourth principle was the override principle, which called for professional discretion in cases where behavior could not be explained with existing knowledge.

Since 1990 the RNR model has expanded to include many more principles (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a; 2010b),

but the principles of risk, need, and responsivity remain at the core. Most of the research has focused on the risk and need principles, while the research on the responsivity principle has been a poor cousin. There are many reasons for this situation, two of which are the ease of conducting research on risk and need compared to responsivity and the vagueness of the original conceptualization of responsivity by Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge (1990). In this paper, we attempt to improve our understanding of the responsivity principle and provide suggestions to furthering research on responsivity. First, however, we summarize the impact of the RNR model on correctional practice. Next, we trace the history of the RNR model with special emphasis on the responsivity principle. Following this discussion, we review how the responsivity principle has come to mean simply a consideration of client characteristics in the absence of the environment where the work takes place, such as therapist/helper characteristics and skills. We then end the article with a discussion of how we can forward a constructive research agenda on the responsivity principle.

The Impact of the RNR Model on Correctional Practice

Today, the research support for the RNR model goes far beyond a handful of studies. There is such a breadth


of research on the principles as they apply to offender assessment and treatment that meta-analytic reviews of the evidence are common. With respect to RNR-based offender assessment, we have the Level of Service (LS) family of instruments such as the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R; Andrews & Bonta, 1995) and the Level of Service Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI; Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2004). Meta-analyses of the LS literature have found the instruments to predict both general and violent recidivism (Campbell, French, & Gendreau, 2009; Gendreau, Goggin, & Smith, 2002; Olver, Stockdale, & Wormith, 2014) and prison misconducts (Gendreau, Goggin, & Law, 1997). Additional quantitative reviews of the instruments have found them applicable to women (Smith, Cullen, & Latessa,2009) and Aboriginal offenders (Wilson & Gutierrez, 2014). In a recent meta-analysis by Bonta, Blais, and Wilson (2014), the risk-need domains measured by the LS instruments were predictive of both general and violent recidivism for mentally disordered offenders. With such evidence, the LS instruments have become the most widely used offender risk/need instruments in the United States (Vose, Cullen, & Smith, 2008), Canada (Wormith, Ferguson, & Bonta, 2013) and internationally (Bonta & Wormith, in press).

Turning to the rehabilitation literature, support for the risk principle can be found in the meta-analysis by Andrews and Dowden (2006). Over 200 treatment studies produced 374 unique effect size estimates. As expected, the mean effect size was .03 with lower-risk cases; delivering treatment services to low risk offenders has little impact on recidivism. Treatment for higher-risk offenders yielded a mean effect size of .10. Although the meta-analysis showed only a modest effect of treatment with higher-risk cases, the authors hypothesized that this may have been due to the inexact way that risk was measured (e.g., first offender=low risk) and the way that offender risk was reported in the studies (risk could be estimated only in the aggregate for 88 percent of the effect size estimates). More recent tests of the risk principle with actuarial measures of offender risk at the individual level have been supportive of the risk principle for adult offenders (Bourgon & Armstrong, 2005; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005; Sperber, Latessa, & Makarios, 2013), female offenders (Lovins, Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Smith, 2007), violent offenders (Polaschek, 2011) and sex offenders (Lovins, Lowenkamp, & Latessa, 2009; Mailloux, Abracen, Serin, Cousineau, Malcolm, & Looman, 2003).

Evidence for the need principle is also extensive and comes from two sources: 1) offender assessment, and 2) offender treatment. In the area of offender assessment, Andrews and Bonta have long argued that a distinction must be made between static and dynamic risk factors (Andrews, 1982; Andrews & Bonta, 1994; Bonta, 1996; Bonta &

Motiuk, 1985). Furthermore, an assessment of dynamic risk factors, particularly those dynamic factors that Andrews and Bonta (2010a) refer to as part of the Central Eight risk/need factors (Table 1), is crucial for effective rehabilitation programming. Empirical support for the predictive validity of the dynamic risk/need factors can be found in a number of meta-analytic reviews. These dynamic risk/need factors have been shown to predict recidivism for male and female offenders (Andrews, Guzzo, Raynor, Rowe, Rettinger, Brews, & Wormith, 2012), Aboriginal offenders (Gutierrez, Wilson, Rugge, & Bonta, 2013; Wilson & Gutierrez, 2014), and mentally disordered offenders (Bonta et al., 2014). We have already noted the literature on the LS instruments, which measure the Central Eight risk/need factors.

The second source of evidence for the need principle is found in the offender treatment literature. Within this literature, dynamic risk/need factors are called criminogenic needs and are viewed as the more desirable targets of treatment intervention. For example, a treatment is more likely to lead to reduced recidivism when the target is procriminal thinking rather than poor self-esteem. Dowden’s (1998) meta-analytic review found that programs targeting criminogenic needs displayed a mean effect size of +.19, compared to an average effect size of –.01 for interventions that targeted non-criminogenic needs. Since then, researchers have continued to find that matching services to offender criminogenic needs is associated with reduced recidivism (Vieira, Skilling, & Peterson-Badali, 2009; Vitopoulos, Peterson-Badali, & Skilling, 2012; Wooditch, Tang, & Taxman, 2014).

The general responsivity principle, use of cognitive-behavioral techniques, has a well- established empirical record. The effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral interventions with offenders has been the conclusion of a number of meta-analytic reviews of the literature (Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Wilson, Bouffard, & MacKenzie, 2005). However, the research on specific responsivity has not been as extensive. The relatively little research conducted has focused on differential treatment effects as a function of the personal biological-social characteristics of the client. Examples are offender motivation for treatment (Kennedy & Serin, 1999), gender (Hubbard, 2007), ethnicity (Usher & Stewart, 2014), and race (Spiropoulos, Salisbury, & Van Voorhis, 2014). There are very few studies on how the personal characteristics of the change agent or the specifics of the interventions impact client outcome. We will return to this issue shortly.

Adherence to the RNR model has a number of benefits. First and foremost, following the RNR principles is associated with reductions in recidivism (Andrews & Bonta,


2010a, 2010b; Koehler, Lösel, Akoensi, & Humphreys, 2013). Second, the model has practical value not only for designing new interventions (Bonta, Bourgon, Rugge, Scott, Yessine, Gutierrez, & Li, 2011; Lowenkamp, Holsinger, Robinson, & Alexander, 2014) but also for developing offender assessment instruments such as the LS instruments described earlier. Third, the RNR model provides a strong rehabilitative model with “explanatory depth” to explain why programs work (Polaschek, 2012). This is not surprising given that the RNR model is derived from an empirically rich social learning theory (Pratt, Cullen, Seller, Winfree, Madensen, Daigle, Fearn, & Gau, 2010). Finally, interventions based on RNR principles are cost-effective (Drake, Aos, & Miller, 2009; Romani, Morgan, Gross, & McDonald, 2012; Taxman, Pattavina, & Caudy, 2014).

The popularity of the RNR model, in our opinion, is well founded. Our empirical understanding of the risk and need principles is solid. Where we need more research is on the responsivity principle. Before we speak to what needs to be done, we turn to a brief summary of the origins of the responsivity principle and its present status.

The Early History of the Responsivity Principle

The development of the RNR model and its umbrella theory, the psychology of criminal conduct, began in the 1970s. Partly as a response to Martinson’s (1974) so-called “Nothing Works” conclusion, a small group of correctional psychologists in the Ottawa area began to challenge the idea that offender rehabilitation is ineffective. Two classmates who began a lifelong friendship in 1962 as psychology interns in Kingston Penitentiary, Don Andrews and Paul Gendreau, were joined by Robert Ross, James Bonta, Robert Hoge, Stephen Wormith and others to become what Paula Smith (2013, p. 71) referred to as the “Canadian School of Rehabilitation.” All were interested in understanding not only whether treatment can be effective in reducing recidivism but also why. Soon after Martinson’s dismissal of offender rehabilitation, Gendreau and Ross published a number of narrative reviews of the literature concluding that treatment can indeed be effective (Gendreau & Ross, 1979, 1981).

The first published formulation of the responsivity principle appeared in the 1990 article by Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge. However, the intellectual roots of the responsivity principle could be found in the need to match clients to specific “therapeutic” environments (although this is generally true for all of the RNR principles, we focus here on the responsivity principle). For quite some time, the psychotherapy/counseling literature was well aware that no one mode of therapy or type of therapist was equally

effective with all clients and that the interaction of therapist, technique, and client needed to be considered (Clavert, Beutler, & Crago, 1988; Paul, 1967; Stein & Lambert, 1984); this remains an issue to this day (Norcross & Wampold, 2010).

An early illustration of differential outcomes as a function of client characteristics and treatment modality in corrections is provided by Grant’s (1965) evaluation of a psychodynamic-oriented intervention with inmates. The first general finding was that client factors such as anxiousness and interpersonal maturity moderated outcome. Inmates who were less anxious, verbally skilled, and more mature benefited from the psychodynamic intervention. Second, therapist characteristics were also important. Therapists who were interpersonally skilled and more collaborative in their approach with the more difficult clients had better outcomes than therapists who were less skilled and more authoritarian.

By 1990 there was sufficient research for Andrews and his colleagues to make two general conclusions with respect to responsivity. First, cognitive-behavioral treatments are more effective than other types of treatment. And why would we expect any different conclusion? After all, behavior is learned through classical and operant conditioning and vicarious learning principles. Andrews et al. (1990) described this as the general responsivity principle. Second, as suggested by the earlier cited evidence on differential outcomes, we must consider client and therapist characteristics in our treatment interventions. This is what was termed specific responsivity and much of the description of specific responsivity dealt with client characteristics such as interpersonal sensitivity, anxiety, verbal intelligence, and motivation. There was relatively little said in the 1990 article about therapist characteristics and skills. As we will argue later, too much emphasis has been placed on client factors and not enough on therapist characteristics and skill level.

To summarize, the responsivity principle is all about delivering human services that target criminogenic needs in a way that is understandable and resonates with the higher risk client. The goal is to optimize the client’s learning of new thoughts and behaviors. Adherence to the responsivity principle requires the following two general considerations:

1. Know the client’s attributes that limit and/ or facilitate the client’s learning style. These are bio/psycho/social factors. Examples of biological factors are race, age/interpersonal maturity, and gender. Psychological factors may include intelligence, personality (e.g., impulsive; interpersonally insensitive), emotions (e.g., anxious), and poor motivation. Examples of social factors are


poverty and culture. Some client attributes may be a mix of factors (e.g., a client from a racial minority has biological factors operating and perhaps social factors in the case of minorities living in poverty).

2. Create an optimal environment conducive to learning. Learning in this context is very broad; it is the acquisition of knowledge and skills. To create such an environment, the first requirement is for the service provider to understand what client characteristics can affect his or her ability to learn. Next, the service provider creates the environment through his or her skills, language, and intervention activities that encourages client engagement in the learning activities and promotes efficient and effective client learning of what is being taught.

Beyond Client Characteristics: Creating an Optimal Learning Environment

We believe it is time to more thoroughly consider what exactly adherence to the responsivity principle means. In other words, what is the responsivity principle attempting to achieve in its own right, distinct from adherence to the risk and need principles? To date, adherence to the RNR principles has been tested and evaluated primarily by the effects on recidivism (i.e., re-offending) and various concomitant behaviors (e.g., police contact, substance use, noncompliance with conditions, and behavioral misconduct; Hubbard, 2007; McMurran, 2009; Messina, Grella, Cartier, & Torres, 2010). However, the heart of the responsivity principle is in the environment created by those providing services. It is not just any environment; it is a “learning” environment, a place where change is promoted and initiated. The risk and need principles provide specific direction to achieve a goal of reducing reoffending (i.e., provide services to higher-risk clients and target needs empirically related to reoffending). Responsivity, however, is about how to deliver services that are conducive to engagement and learning. We believe that an independent test of adherence to the responsivity principle would only distally, if at all, involve its effect on reoffending.

So what evidence would one consider that tests responsivity efforts? Within a context of certain client attributes, it must be found in the learning environment created by the service provider. The first indication that a responsive environment is in place would be increases in the client’s engagement in the services. Specific behavioral indicators of treatment engagement can be lower attrition rates, increased program attendance, client participation in “rehabilitative” activities (e.g., on-topic discussions, exercises, role plays, completion of homework assignments), and client acknowledgement of the personal benefits of the

services received. In essence, the client wants to be involved in the services and demonstrates behaviors illustrating engagement in rehabilitative activities. A conducive learning environment begins with the engagement of the client in that environment.

The second indication of a responsive environment would be greater amounts of “learning” what is being “taught.” Learning may be reflected in the recall of the materials (for example, key constructs, concepts, and skills) relevant to their own lives and circumstances, and utilization of the skills in hypothetical (for example, role play exercises) and/or real life situations outside of the treatment environment. At a minimum, the learning is specific to the content of the service or program where the “knowledge” or “skills” would vary depending on the treatment targets. They may include skills required to address criminogenic needs, enhancing client’s strengths, and even increasing the use of community and personal resources. For example, the “learnings” may be the content of a good job resume, self-regulation of anger, using time-out, or executing a relapse prevention plan for certain targeted criminogenic needs.

For non-criminogenic treatment targets, the learnings may be enhanced knowledge and practice of a cultural activity, or knowing and using self-affirmations to increase self-esteem. With the emphasis on the creation of an environment conducive to learning, a more responsive service begins with enhanced client engagement, followed by facilitated learning of what the service is attempting to “teach,” and ends in greater impacts on the treatment target(s). It is within this context of the treatment targets that there exists the potential impact on re-offending. We use the word potential for a reason. Treatment target(s) fall under the umbrella of the need principle and not the responsivity principle. If the treatment targets are criminogenic needs, then and only then would there be an expectation that the responsive service is more efficient and potentially more effective in reducing reoffending. Reduced reoffending would be mediated through enhanced engagement and learning and targeting the client’s criminogenic need. However, if the treatment target is non-criminogenic, then we would hypothesize that a responsive service, or for that matter a nonresponsive service, would have no effect on reoffending. When “responsivity” efforts are measured simply by reduced reoffending, we miss an opportunity to gain a better understanding of responsivity; that is, identifying specific and concrete actions that we as service providers can do to create a more “responsive” environment. Responsivity is about how we promote client engagement and client learning most efficiently and effectively. As Serin, Lloyd, Helmus, Derkzen, and Luong (2013) note, there is a significant gap in the research on the process


and measurement of change, particularly in regards to the various components or “learnings” inherent in the change process itself, such as basic knowledge, and the application and internalization of a program’s key concepts and skills that lead to changes in need and a reduction of risk.

Responsivity—Enhancing Engagement and Learning

Enhancing engagement and learning is not a new issue in correctional rehabilitation. For those working in the criminal justice field, it is widely acknowledged that there is a challenge to recruit criminal justice clients for treatment, retain them in the service for the program’s entirety, and have them engage actively and “learn” the critical components of the service. Although a number of studies directly and indirectly evaluate different “learning environments,” let us describe a few that speak directly to responsivity and its impact on engagement and learning.

Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a set of concrete and specific skills, techniques, and strategies designed to create an environment that addresses treatment failure (i.e., failure to attend, engage, complete treatment) by increasing motivation (Miller, 1985). Although today we consider increasing motivation as strengthening a client’s commitment to change (Miller & Rollnick, 2014), where commitment and motivation are dynamic and internal, Miller’s (1985) conceptualization was behaviorally based. Motivation was defined as “the probability of entering, continuing, and complying with an active change strategy” (Miller, 1985, p. 88) and MI focused on the processes and operations that influenced that probability. MI is about creating a “responsive” environment to enhance treatment engagement behaviors, yet it is not cognitive-behavioral therapy in the sense that its goal is to teach recovery or relapse prevention skills (Miller & Rose, 2009).

Putting aside whether or not MI is effective at changing a vast array of the problem behaviors (such as substance abuse and smoking), there is ample empirical work on MI demonstrating that MI does enhance treatment engagement with non-offenders (Hettema, Steele, & Miller, 2005; Lundahl & Burke, 2009; Lundahl, Kunz, Brownell, Tollefson, & Burke, 2010) and offenders (McMurran, 2009). Regardless of the debate surrounding the theoretical underpinnings of its construct of motivation, from a simple and pragmatic point of view, the successful implementation of MI skills, techniques, and spirit creates an “environment” that increases treatment engagement. There is also supporting evidence that MI enhances learning that takes place during treatment. From reviews on MI noted earlier, MI’s effect on problem behavior is strengthened when it is added as a prelude or adjunct to a formal treatment program.

What we like about MI is that it is prescriptive about what to do to create an optimal learning environment, specifying the helper’s behaviors (e.g., skills, techniques, and activities employed during sessions) and informing them of what to do and how to do it while interacting with a client. The primary target—engagement rather than the more distal outcome of problem behavior change (such as substance use or re-offending)—is specific to the outcomes of responsivity.

Although the roots of MI were first published in 1985, there is much similarity between MI skills and the techniques of Core Correctional Practices (CCPs) first reported in the early 1980s (Andrews, 1979; Andrews & Kiessling, 1980). The CCPs that “change agents” use when working with offenders were the cornerstone of the responsivity principle. Delineated between a relationship dimension (e.g., warmth, empathy, and enthusiastic and non-blaming communication) and a structuring dimension (e.g., effective reinforcement, problem solving, modeling, and rehearsal), the early studies on CCPs focused on their impact on recidivism (Dowden & Andrews, 2004). Trotter (1996) and more recently probation officer training initiatives in the U.S. and Canada have focused on learning CCP, MI, and other fundamental skills and intervention techniques (EPICS: Smith et al., 2012; STARR: Robinson et al., 2012; STICS: Bonta et al., 2011). Although the results of these initiatives are promising, from a responsivity perspective these projects offer ample opportunity to identify and examine different responsivity accommodations to “learning environments” (i.e., officer-client interactions) and their impact on discrete responsivity outcomes such as engagement and client learning.

Finally, the literature on MI and CCP highlights what is often referred to as the MI spirit; a collaborative, person-centered form of guiding clients (Miller & Rose, 2009). From a responsivity perspective, the learning environment is one of collaboration to enhance client engagement and learning. Collaboration is implicated in the work on the therapeutic or working alliance. A considerable body of research illustrates the importance of the relationship between helper and client, distinct from the intervention techniques (see Horvath & Symonds, 1991, for a comprehensive review). In corrections, the work of Jennifer Skeem and colleagues is demonstrating the importance of the therapeutic alliance to offender supervision (Skeem, Louden, Polaschek, & Camp, 2007). They have found the alliance to have a significant association with client resistance, motivation, cooperation, and compliance with supervision conditions—what we consider as primary responsivity outcomes. The working alliance may in fact be a good outcome proxy for engagement, and the focus of responsivity research can be directed to identifying the skills and activities that are required to build and strengthen such an alliance


(e.g., listening, empathy, firm but fair approaches). The accumulated evidence related to engagement and learning suggests that creating and maintaining a collaborative environment (through MI, CCPs, and relationship-building skills) appears to be another general practical guideline to creating responsive environments for clients beyond the use of cognitive-behavioral techniques. Creating a collaborative environment appears to be a global characteristic of a responsive environment that facilitates engagement at a minimum and, ideally, efficient and effective learning. Much of the work with sex offenders by Marshall and colleagues highlights the importance of cooperation and collaboration (as opposed to a confrontational environment) to enhance engagement and participation in treatment (Marshall & Serran, 2000; Marshall, Ward, et al., 2005). Future avoiding the myopic view that recidivism outcome is the means to evaluate responsivity efforts and place primary emphasis on the impact on client engagement and learning.

The Interrelationship of Risk, Need and Responsivity

There are a number of instances where responsive services include efforts at addressing what are considered non-criminogenic needs. There is the work on gender responsive treatment and culturally specific programming (e.g., here in Canada, providing treatment to Aboriginal clients). The mix of gender/cultural factors and treatment targets illustrates the blurring of lines between the need principle and the responsivity principle. Specifically, if the primary question is the effectiveness of the gender/cultural factors at reducing reoffending, then the debate is about whether or not these unique needs of specific groups are criminogenic in nature (i.e., conform to

the need principle). On the other hand, if the primary question is one of engagement and learning for the client involved in the service regardless of whether the program focuses on criminogenic or non-criminogenic needs, then the question asked relates to the responsivity principle.

It is recognized that female offenders are different from male offenders (Blanchette & Brown, 2006; Wright, Van Voorhis, Salisbury, & Bauman, 2012). As a consequence of the differences, treatment programs have been developed to address the unique needs of women (e.g., victimization, mental health, social and economic marginalization). It is then argued that the gender-informed program is following the responsivity principle. However, evaluations of such programs have focused on recidivism reductions, an outcome more relevant to the need principle than to the responsivity principle. Let us take as an example the difficulties in assessing the role of the need and responsivity principles with the randomized study conducted by Messina, Grell, Cartier, and Torres (2010). Messina and her colleagues

(2010) randomly assigned 115 women offenders to either a gender-responsive treatment program (GRT) or a standard Therapeutic Community treatment program (TC). The GRT and TC programs differed significantly, particularly on the needs targeted. Both programs targeted substance abuse (a criminogenic need) but GRT targeted additional women-specific needs, such as the effects of trauma and victimization (e.g., dysfunctional family relationships and sexual behavior, self-harm). Moreover, in addition to cognitive-behavioral and psycho-educational techniques, the GRT used intervention approaches that may better engage women in the counseling process (e.g., relational and experiential techniques). The three major outcomes of drug use, reincarceration, and length of stay in residential aftercare all favored the GRT group.

What can we say about this study and its adherence to the risk, need, and responsivity principles? At first glance, it appears that this study speaks largely to the need principle. Although the GRT targeted non-criminogenic needs (e.g., memories of trauma and childhood victimization), it also targeted more criminogenic needs than the TC. The women in the GRT were treated not only for substance abuse (common to both programs) but also for targeted family (of origin and intimate partners), peers (i.e., social supports), and attitudes (i.e., thinking that lead to a variety of dysfunctional and/or delinquent behaviors). The finding that the GRT women stayed longer in residential aftercare suggests a treatment dosage effect (risk principle) and greater engagement in treatment (responsivity principle). Although we do not know how much, the women in the GRT received some cognitive-behavioral treatment (general responsivity), and they were exposed to therapeutic approaches that enhanced their learning (specific responsivity). The Messina et al. (2010) study illustrates the difficulty in distinguishing elements of responsivity, risk, and need in our research efforts. To further illustrate on a broader level, we examined the large offender treatment database of Andrews and Bonta (2010a).

Selecting only those studies that adhere to the general responsivity principle (i.e., use cognitive-behavioral techniques; k=77), 93.5 percent of those studies also adhered to the need principle. In other words, programs that employ cognitive-behavioral interventions with offenders also tend to follow the need principle. Dissecting the independent influence of the RNR principles and in particular the responsivity principle is a challenge.

An Agenda for Research on Responsivity

Moving forward, there is much for researchers and clinicians to do to broaden and expand our knowledge of the responsivity principle. Building knowledge about the means by which client engagement is enhanced, how learning can


be optimized, and how these two factors impact on needs can provide valuable information to those responsible for designing, delivering, and evaluating human services to improve their efforts. We believe that it is time to re-direct our research efforts from “does it work” to looking inside the black box of rehabilitation with a focus on the nature and characteristics of the learning environment, including the interactions inherent in human service delivery.

We are certainly not the first in corrections to look

inside the black box of treatment (Bonta, Rugge, Scott, Bourgon, & Yessine, 2008). William Marshall and his colleagues have strongly advocated examining the “therapeutic environment” and provide clinical guidance on how to engage and facilitate learning for sex offender treatment (Marshall et al., 2005; Marshall & Serran, 2010). They advocate supportive rather than confrontational approaches, emphasize approach goals rather than avoidance goals, and encourage creating a positive and collaborative environment. These factors can be tested. However, the outcomes of interest must focus on engagement and learning indicators prior to examining recidivism effectiveness.

Independent tests of responsivity within the treatment or human service would ideally compare two treatments of equitable/equivalent individuals (i.e., equal adherence to risk principle) in which both treatments targeted identical needs (i.e., equal adherence to the need principle) but differed on the learning environments within each program (e.g., helper’s behaviors, conceptual scheme used, skills taught, etc.). Comparing different “therapeutic” environments on client engagement, learning, and change in offender needs should prove fruitful to expanding our understanding of the responsivity principle. In terms of effectiveness to reduce re-offending, a distal outcome of adherence to the responsivity principle, any impact on recidivism may be attributed to client engagement and greater client learning that then impacts targeted criminogenic needs.

There is much to be learned about responsivity, even within the well-established general responsivity principle of utilizing cognitive-behavioral approaches. Although cognitive-behavioral approaches and models share some fundamental similarities, there is substantial variability among the approaches, ranging from conceptual schemes and constructs to the fundamental skills that are emphasized. Different treatment models may also use different explanatory mechanisms and terminology. For example, Marlatt’s Relapse Prevention Framework (1985) and its variations uses the concepts of “triggers,” “high risk situations.” and “outcome expectancies,” Beck (1979) talks of “cognitive distortions” and “automatic thoughts,” and Yochelson and Samenow (1977) use the language of

“thinking errors.” Considering responsivity as the learning environment and its impact on engagement and learning gives rise to the possibility that the use of different key concepts, terms, and skills may enhance or diminish engagement and learning.

Our recent work with the Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision (STICS; Bonta et al., 2011) illustrates small but perhaps significant changes to the constructs and language of cognitive-behavioral approaches that could be empirically tested. Many if not all cognitive-behavioral interventions have labels to assist clients identifying problematic versus non-problematic thinking. They may be referred to as “thinking errors,” “cognitive distortions,” or “neutralizations” or many other terms, each with similar but not identical definitions and/or underlying meaning for behavior. In STICS, we made efforts to change these labels derived from formal cognitive behavioral language to labels that give rise to visual or auditory images (Rugge & Bonta, 2014). We reasoned that these changes would enhance client engagement, client l earning, and client application of these terms and concepts to their own personal thinking and behavior. Even the often-used sequential organization of antecedent stimuli—internal events—behavior—consequence found in most cognitive-behavioral models varies in the terms used and in the underlying construct’s function. For example, antecedent stimuli may be referred to as an “external situation,” “trigger,” “high-risk situation,” or “activating event.” The function of the antecedent stimulus in behavior can differ as well. It may function as a discriminative stimulus controlling certain emotions, thoughts, and/or behavior, a conditioned stimulus resulting in a conditioned emotional, cognitive, and/or behavioral response, or a signal to the individual providing information about potential reinforcement/punishment contingencies. In STICS, we shy away from such terms, instead teaching clients the term “Outside Cues” and employing it as an information or contextual signal only, having little explanatory power for an individual’s thoughts, feelings, or behavior. Such simple but often overlooked examples of responsivity efforts to enhance the learning environment can be empirically tested and evaluated on client engagement and learning.

Summary

The RNR model is one of the most widely researched and validated models of offender rehabilitation. The empirical support surrounding the risk and need principles is well grounded, particularly around the assessment of risk and need. Although research continues to explore additional potential risk/need factors, particularly for specific groups such as women, the importance of adhering to the principles


when delivering human services has a firm empirical foundation. However, the research support surrounding specific responsivity pales in comparison. To date, cognitive-behavioral approaches (general responsivity) have been shown to be a more effective theoretical framework than psychodynamic or other models of “therapy” (Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005). A problem with responsivity research has been its focus on client attributes that are believed to impact rehabilitation efforts rather than on the characteristics and actions of therapists. By placing the focus on reoffending, a distal outcome of responsivity, we have failed to more closely examine what “responsivity” fundamentally means and what adherence to the responsivity principle is trying to achieve. Although client attributes provide context, responsivity is first and foremost about our efforts to accommodate those attributes, what it is that we do. Responsivity is creating an optimal learning environment for the client; an environment that helps the client to engage and learn through observation, dialogue, interaction, and experience. The immediate and direct outcomes of successful responsivity efforts are enhanced client engagement in the service and its activities and enhanced client learning of “teachings” of the service. We hope that we have offered a way forward for clinicians and researchers alike by reconsidering what is meant by the responsivity principle.

References

Andrews, D. A. (1979). The dimensions of correctional coun-selling and supervision processes in probation and parole. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.

Andrews, D. A. (1982). The Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI):

The first follow-up. Toronto,ON: Ontario Ministry of Cor-rectional Services.

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1994). The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level of Service Inven-

tory—Revised. Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems.

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010a). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.).Newark, NJ: LexisNexis/Matthew Bender.

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010b). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 16, 39-55.

Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R .D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.

Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, S. J. (2004). The Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI). Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems.

Andrews, D. A., & Dowden, C. (2006). Risk principle of case clas-sification in correctional treatment. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 88-100.

Andrews, D. A., Guzzo, L., Raynor, P., Rowe, R. C., Rettinger, J. L., Brews, A., & Wormith, S. J. (2012). Are the major risk/need factors predictive of both female and male reoffending? A test with the eight domains of the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 113-133.

Andrews, D. A., & Kiessling, J. J. (1980). Program structure and effective correctional practices: A summary of the CaVIC research. In R.R. Ross & P. Gendreau (Eds.), Effective cor-rectional treatment (pp. 439-463). Toronto, ON: Butterworth.

Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta analysis. Criminology, 28, 369 404.

Beck, A. T. (1979). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York, NY: Penguin.

Blanchette, K., & Brown, S. (2006). The assessment and treatment of women offenders. Chichester, England: Wiley.

Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-needs assessment and treatment. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 18-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bonta, J., Blais, J., & Wilson, H. (2014). A theoretically informed meta-analysis of the risk for general and violent recidivism for mentally disordered offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 278-287.

Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Scott, T.-L., Yessine, A. K., Gutierrez, L., & Li., J. (2011). An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1127-1148.

Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L. L. (1985). Utilization of an interview based classification instrument: A study of correctional halfway houses. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 333-352.

Bonta, J., Rugge, T., Scott, T., Bourgon, G., & Yessine, A. (2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47, 248-270.

Bonta, J., & Wormith, S. J. (in press). Adult offender assessment and classification in custodial settings. In J. Wooldredge & P. Smith (Eds.), Oxford handbook on prisons and imprison-ment. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Bourgon, G., & Armstrong, B. (2005). Transferring the principles of effective treatment into a “real world” prison setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 3-25.


Clavert, S. J., Beutler, L. E., & Crago, M. (1988). Psychotherapy outcome as a function of therapist-patient matching on se-lected variables. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 104-117.

Campbell, M.A., French, S., & Gendreau, P. (2009). The prediction of violence in adult offenders: A meta-analytic comparison of instruments and methods of assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 567-590.

Cullen, F. T. (2012). Taking rehabilitation seriously. Punishment & Society, 14, 94-114. Dowden, C. (1998). A meta-analytic examination of the risk, need and responsivity principles and their importance within the rehabilitation debate. Master’s thesis, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ot-tawa, Ontario.

Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2004). The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 203-214.

Drake, E. K., Aos, S., & Miller, M. G. (2009). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice costs: Implications in Washington state. Victims and Offend-ers, 4, 170-196.

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Law, M. (1997). Predicting prison misconducts. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 414-431.

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (2002). Is the PCL-R re-ally the “unparalleled” measure of offender risk? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 397-426.

Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. R. (1979). Effective correctional treatment: Bibliotherapy for cynics. Crime and Justice, 25, 463-489.

Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. R. (1981). Correctional potency on trial: Treatment and deterrence on trial. In R. Roesch & R. R. Corrado (Eds.), Evaluation and criminal justice policy (pp.

463-489). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Grant, J. D. (1965). Delinquency treatment in an institutional setting. In H. C. Quay (Ed.), Juvenile delinquency: Research and theory (pp. 29-57). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Guttierez, L., Wilson, H., Rugge, T., & Bonta, J. (2013). The prediction of recidivism with Aboriginal offenders: A theoretically informed meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 55, 55-99.

Hettema, J., Steele, J., & Miller, W. R. (2005). Motivational inter-viewing. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 91-111.

Horvath, A. O., & Symonds, B. D. (1991). Relation between work-ing alliance and outcome in psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 139-149.

Hubbard, D. J. (2007). Getting the most out of correctional treat-ment: Testing the responsivity principle on male and female offenders. Federal Probation, 71, 2-8.

Kennedy, S., & Serin, R. (1999). Examining offender readiness to change and the impact on treatment outcome. In P. M. Harris (Ed.), Research to results: Effective community cor-rections (pp. 215-230). Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.

Koehler, J. A., Lösel, F., Akoensi, T. D., &Humphreys, D. K. (2013). A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of young offender treatment programs in Europe. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9, 19-43.

Landenberger, N. A., & Lipsey, M. W. (2005). The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 451-476.

Lovins, L. B., Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P.

(2007). Application of the risk principle to female offenders. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23, 383-398.

Lovins, L. B., Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2009). Apply-ing the risk principle to sex offenders: Can treatment make some sex offenders worse? The Prison Journal, 89,344-357.

Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A., Robinson, C. R., & Alexan-der, M. (2014). Diminishing or durable treatment effects of STARR? A research note on 24-month re-arrest rates. Journal of Crime and Justice, 37, 275-283.

Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2005). Increasing the ef-fectiveness of correctional programming through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement. Criminology and Public Policy, 4, 501-528.

Lundahl, B., & Burke, B. L. (2009). The effectiveness and ap-

plicability of motivational interviewing: A practice friendly review of four meta-analyses. Journal of Clinical Psychol-ogy, 65, 1232-1245.

Lundahl, B. W., Kunz, C., Brownell, C., Tollefson, D., & Burke, B. L. (2010). A meta-analysis of motivational interviewing: Twenty-five years of empirical studies. Research on Social Work Practice, 20, 137-160.

Mailloux, D. L., Abracen, J., Serin, R., Cousineau, C., Malcolm, B., & Looman, J. (2003). Dosage of treatment to sexual of-fenders: Are we overprescribing? International Journal of Of-fender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 171-184.


Marlatt, G. A. (1985). Relapse prevention: Theoretical rationale and overview of the model. Relapse Prevention, 3-70.

Marshall, W. L., & Serran, G. S. (2000). Improving the effec-tiveness of sexual offender treatment. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 1, 203-222.

Marshall, W. L., Ward, T., Mann, R. E., Moulden, H., Fernandez,

Y. M., Serran, G. S., & Marshall, L. E. (2005). Working posi-tively with sexual offenders: Maximizing the effectiveness of treatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1096-1114.

Martinson, R. (1974). What works?—Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22-54.

McMurran, M. (2009). Motivational interviewing with offenders: A systematic review. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 83-100.

Messina, N., Grella, C. E., Cartier, J., & Torres, S. (2010). A ran-domized experimental study of gender-responsive substance abuse treatment for women in prison. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 38, 97-107.

Miller, W. R. (1985). Motivation for treatment: A review with special emphasis on alcoholism. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 84-107.

Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2009). Ten things that motivational interviewing is not. Behavioural and Cognitive Psycho-therapy, 37, 129-140.

Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2014). The effectiveness and inef-fectiveness of complex behavioral interventions: Impact of treatment fidelity. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 37, 234-241.

Miller, W. R., & Rose, G. S. (2009). Toward a theory of moti-vational interviewing. American Psychologist, 64, 527-537.

Ogloff, J. R. P., & Davis, N. R. (2004). Advances in offender assessment and rehabilitation: Contributions of the Risk-Needs-Responsivity approach. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10,

229-242.

Olver, M. E., Stockdale, K. C., & Wormith, S. J. (2014). Thirty years of research on the Level of Service scales: A meta-analytic examination of predictive accuracy and sources of

variability. Psychological Assessment, 26, 156-176.

Paul, G. L. (1967). Strategy of outcome research in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31, 109-118.

Polaschek, D. L. (2011). High-intensity rehabilitation for vio-lent offenders in New Zealand: Reconviction outcomes for high-and medium-risk prisoners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 664-682.

Polaschek, D. L. L. (2012). An appraisal of the risk-need-respon-sivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation and its appli-cation in correctional treatment. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17, 1-17.

Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Seller, C. S., Winfree, L. T. Jr., Madensen, T. D., Daigle, L. E., Fearn, N. E., & Gau, J. M. (2010). The empirical status of social learning theory: A meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 27, 765-802.

Robinson, C. R., Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M., VanBen-schoten, S. W., Alexander, M., & Oleson, J. C. (2012). A random study of Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Re-arrest (STARR): Using core correctional practices in probation interactions. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35, 167-188.

Romani, C. J., Morgan, R. D., Gross, N. R., & McDonald, B. R. (2012). Treating criminal behavior: Is the bang worth the buck? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18, 144-165.

Rugge, T., & Bonta, J. (2014). Training community corrections

officers in cognitive-behavioral intervention strategies. In R. C. Tafrate & D. Mitchell (Eds.), Forensic CBT: A handbook for clinical practice (pp. 122-136). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Serin, R. C., Lloyd, C. D., Helmus, L., Derkzen, D. M., & Luong, D. (2013). Does intra-individual change predict offender re-cidivism? Searching for the Holy Grail in assessing offender change. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 32-53.

Skeem, J. L., Louden, J. E., Polaschek, D., & Camp, J. (2007). Assessing relationship quality in mandated community treat-ment: Blending care with control. Psychological Assessment, 19, 397-410.

Smith, P. (2013). The psychology of criminal conduct. In F. T. Cul-len & P. Wilcox (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminologi-cal theory (pp. 69-88). New York: Oxford University Press.

Smith, P., Cullen, F. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2009). Can 14,373 women be wrong? A meta-analysisof the LSI-R and recidivism for female offenders. Criminology and Public Policy, 8, 183-208.

Smith, P., Schweitzer, M., Labrecque, R. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2012). Improving probation officers’ supervision skills: An evaluation of the EPICS model. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35(2), 189-199.

Sperber, K. G., Latessa, E. J., & Makarios, M. D. (2013). Ex-amining the interaction between level of risk and dosage of treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 338-348.

Spiropoulos, G. V., Salisbury, E. J., & Van Voorhis, P. (2014). Moderators of correctional treatment success: An exploratory study of racial differences. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58, 835-860.


Stein, D. M., & Lambert, M. J. (1984). On the relationship between therapist experience and psychotherapy outcome. Clinical Psychology Review, 4, 127-142.

Taxman, F. S., Pattavina, A., Caudy, M. (2014). Justice reinvest-ment in the United States: An empirical assessment of the potential impact of increased correctional programming on recidivism. Victims and Offenders, 9, 50-75.

Trotter, C. (1996). The impact of different supervision practices in community corrections: Cause for optimism. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 29, 1-18.

Usher, A. M., & Stewart, L. A. (2014). Effectiveness of correc-tional programs with ethnically diverse offenders: A meta-analytic study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58, 209-230.

Vieira, T. A., Skilling, T. A., & Peterson-Badali, M. (2009). Match-ing court-ordered services with treatment needs: Predicting treatment success with young offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 385-401.

Vitopoulos, N. A., Peterson-Badali, M., & Skilling, T. A. (2012). The relationship between matching service to criminogenic need and recidivism in male and female youth: Examining the RNR Principles in Practice. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1025-1041.

Vose, B., Cullen, F. T., & Smith, P. (2008). The empirical status of the Level of Service Inventory. Federal Probation, 72, 22-29.

Wilson, D. B., Bouffard, L. A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2005). A quantitative review of structured, group-oriented, cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 172-204.

Wilson, H. A., & Gutierrez, L. (2014). Does one size fit all? A meta-analysis examining the predictive ability of the Level of Service Inventory (LSI) with Aboriginal offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 196-219.

Wooditch, A., Tang, L. L., & Taxman, F. S. (2014). Which criminogenic need changes are most important in promoting desistence from crime and substance use? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 276-299.

Wormith, S. J., Ferguson, M., & Bonta, J. (2013). Offender classification and case management and their application in Canadian corrections. In J. Winterdyk & M. Weinrath (Eds.), Adult corrections in Canada: A comprehensive overview (pp. 171-198). Whitby, ON: deSitter.

Wright, E. M., Van Voorhis, P., Salisbury, E. J., & Bauman, A. (2012). Gender-responsive lessons learned and policy impli-cations for women in prison: A review. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1612-1632.

Yochelson, S., & Samenow, S. E. (1977). The criminal personality, Vol. II: The change process. New York, NY: Jason Aronson.

Reprinted with permission from the Federal Probation Journal


Are We Really Talking About Coaching?“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.”—AristotleBy Cinthya Serrato

Cinthya Serrato has a B.A. in Criminal Justice from St. Edward’s University in Austin, Texas. She has over nine years’ experience in adult probation serving in various positions to include field supervision officer, Treatment Alternative to Incarceration (TAIP) assessor, absconder unit officer, pre-sentence investigation officer and most recently as a court officer. Ms. Serrato’s other contributions to Travis County CSCD have been as the Chair for the Spanish Translation Committee (tasked with translating departmental documents into Spanish) and as a member of the TRAS Implementation Committee. Currently, she is training to become a coach for the Travis County Targeted Supervision Model in the Skill Driven Supervision Training.

Change is occurring in community supervision across the state. We are in the midst of implementing the Texas Risk Assessment System (TRAS), an evidence-based assessment that uses a client’s risk factors to determine their risk of recidivism. With all of these changes, one might wonder why we are focusing on coaching. In my mind, coaching was a sports terminology and didn’t relate to learning to apply the TRAS to my clients. I almost felt like Allen Iverson in the 2001 NBA season: “Practice, are we really talking about practice?” Are we really talking about coaching? You mean, in addition to learning how to utilize the TRAS, I need to make time for coaching? I made it my quest to find out why coaching was important for us during such a transitional period.

Writing this very article was the best way to get my answers. I started by asking Director Charles Robinson, “Why coaching?” He responded by giving me numerous articles on coaching. In these articles, I found that coaching has been proven effective in the training of educators and mental health practitioners. Coaching, a new concept in our field, has never been implemented in community supervision on a large scale. Thus, we are leading the way towards more effective community supervision practices. Studies conducted in Canada and U.S. Federal Probation showed that adding on the job coaching increased new skill acquisition up to 95%. In addition, researchers found that besides skill proficiency, coaching also had a positive impact on the probation officer and client relationship, which resulted in increased positive behavioral change in clients.

Most of us, at some point in our life, have either been coached or have had a child that has been coached. You

understand that the coach’s job is to make you better, enhance your skills and ultimately get you ready for the big game or test. In our case, we are learning the TRAS. Our coaches help teach the technique. As you work, they give you feedback or offer a different perspective. While learning the TRAS, I have had times when clients are in the gray area and don’t seem to fit a certain score, and my coaches have been there to help. Without them, I would have had to play the guessing game or wait for a Manager. Coaches are a resource to address our questions, concerns and alleviate feelings of frustration. As the transition progresses, coaching will give us more confidence in the tool and allow us to transition towards effecting positive behavioral change in our clients.

Conducting and scoring the TRAS is just the tip of the iceberg of change. In true Travis County CSCD fashion, we are going above and beyond the implementation and heading towards learning to have more meaningful interactions with clients. This reminds me of when I first started with Travis County CSCD over eight years ago. A fellow officer described our job to me as nothing more than that of a “paper pusher.” You write and file documents in client files and stuff them in cabinets. That may have been true years ago, but today our role is definitely more meaningful, and the current transition makes that more evident than ever. The focus of our role has shifted beyond chronos and addressing condition violations to becoming true change agents. Being positive role models to our clients while addressing their criminal attitudes is the key to having positive long-term behavioral change that can then reduce their chances of recidivism. Coaching can help us learn to positively impact


our clients’ lives. If you have ever heard an acceptance speech for an award, you might have realized that the winners don’t thank themselves. They thank the coaches, their parents, their agents, or whoever it was that helped them reach that point of success in their lives. Our coaches are here to help us achieve that success in this transition and carry us through the many more changes to come.

Thoughts and Tips from some of our coaches:

For me [coaching] was simply an opportunity to contrib-ute to CSCD as a team player and embrace the new TRAS. I’ve learned a lot and hope to encourage others as we transition.

Getting to spend time with my colleagues and learning from one another has been most valuable. I’ve learned how others conduct their interviews. Some things they do, I actually liked and might incorporate myself. Training is a passion of mine and this form of training via “peer coaching” is one valuable way I feel I can contribute in a capacity I really enjoy.

Hopefully, relationships formed with the coaches will be a positive memory and future opportunities will be explored. It has been an exceptional challenge. Thanks to everyone for working with us. As we all approach each day, we rec-ognize the turf may be a little rough around the edges- so use every tool placed before you with excellence—We will succeed—TOGETHER!

—Paulette Tyson

It is energizing to work with others if you are passionate about the topic. I love the questions and conversations that get brought up during the coaching sessions; these types of conversations help us to develop a shared understanding of what we do and what we should do as practitioners.

Engaging in conversations has helped to deepen my own understanding of the material. Also, I believe that every-one has something to offer. Seeing how other CSOs do things is fun because I get to pick up ideas, tips, and tricks that help me in my own work.

If any of you have an area of passion and a chance to become a coach in that area, do it!

—Kyle Boisjoli

Serving as a TRAS coach has definitely benefitted my development as a Probation Officer. Not only am I coach-ing and providing guidance through the implementation of TRAS, but I’m also learning from my fellow officers

through the observations I’m conducting and their meth-ods of interviewing.

Probe, Probe, and Probe … Don’t feel like you are beating a dead horse when the information you need is not being presented. Rephrase or provide examples in order to get the necessary information to score the tool. Also make sure to review the defendant’s criminal history prior to the interview.

—Angel Hernandez

When I was asked about coaching I didn’t know what it was about, but I was ready for something different and challenging, so that was my inspiration.

It has been great to sit in with my co-workers for the ob-servations which have allowed us to share ideas and dif-ferent ways of doing things as we all learn a new process.

—Stephanie Cisneros

Although the time crunch was stressful at first, I have en-joyed being able to have some 1:1 time with co-workers I don’t usually see, and get out of my office for a little while.

Discussing the TRAS Tool and scoring guide enhances my own use of the Tool, as the more I use it, the more familiar I become with the guidelines for scoring. I like the coach-ing because I feel more relaxed and I certainly hope those I am coaching feel more at ease than a formal type of evaluation.

—Rebecca Bumpass

I have enjoyed being a coach in the past for MI. I hope to create a positive, non-judgmental learning environment.

Being a coach has encouraged me to become better at ad-ministering the TRAS. I get to practice more. I get to learn from my coach-ees and trainers.

Be patient with yourself. Practice, Practice, Practice. —Carolyn Gremminger

ReferencesBonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Scott, T., Yessine, A.K., Gutier-

rez, L., Jobina, Li. (2010). The Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision: Risk-Need-Responsivity in the Real World. Corrections Research: User Report, (2010-01), 20p.

Lowenkamp, M., Robinson, C., et al. (2012). The Importance of Coaching: A Brief Survey of Probation Officers. Federal Probation: A Journal of Correctional Philosophy and Prac-tice, 76(2).


Extraordinary People make an Extraordinary Difference By Rodolfo Perez, Jr.

Rodolfo Perez, Jr. is the Assistant Director for Travis County Community Supervision & Corrections Department & Pretrial Services. He has worked in the field of probation for the past 12 years in different roles, from Case Assistant, Probation Officer, Pre Sentence Investigator, and Supervisor. He received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Criminal Justice and a Master of Public Administration Degree from the University of Texas—Pan American. Currently, he is collaborating with George Mason University and Carleton University to assist in implementing research into practice. He is currently a member of the Texas Probation Association, serving on the Publications Committee. He previously served on the Board of Directors for the Hidalgo County Community Correction Improvement Foundation, a non-profit organization that supports community corrections agencies in their efforts to promote the utilization of evidence based practices in the supervision and treatment of offenders.

On September 13, 2015, Travis County Community Justice Services’ (TCCJS) League of Extraordinary Probation Officers joined forces with other local superheroes to raise $545.00 towards the $56,937.00 raised for Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of Travis County.

CASA of Travis County believes every child who’s been abused or neglected deserves to have a dedicated advocate speaking up for their best interest in court, at school and in our community. To accomplish this, CASA educates and empowers diverse community volunteers who ensure each child’s needs remain a priority in an over-burdened child welfare system. When the state steps in to protect a child’s safety because the people responsible for protecting them have not, a judge appoints a trained CASA volunteer to make independent and informed recommendations and help the judge decide what’s best for the child. For children who’ve been abused or neglected, CASA means having a home instead of feeling lost, and being a priority instead of feeling invisible. Children with CASA volunteers are more likely to end up with their family, and according to National CASA, more likely to receive therapy, health care and education and do better in school, and less likely to be bounced from one place to another or get stuck in long-term foster care. CASA’s vision is to provide a volunteer advocate for every child in need in our community. Last year, 700 children still needed

NEWS FROM THE FIELD


a volunteer to speak up for them. For volunteers, CASA is a life-changing experience that makes our community a better place. CASA volunteers come from every walk of life and share a commitment to improving children’s lives, a willingness to learn, and an open mind towards life experiences different from their own.

TCCJS staff, Sunni Wingate, Thelma Paris, Lula Williams, James Saucedo, Shawn Smith, and Rudy Perez represented the League of Extraordinary Probation Officers running the 5K, while Tammy Bradbury generously donated towards the cause. It was an opportunity to foster comradery while helping the fight against child abuse.

A few of the comments from the League of Extraordinary Probation Officers included:

“The Superhero Run was a fun opportunity to spend quality time with co-workers while casting a bright light on the important work of CASA. CASA provides an essential role in the lives of so many Superheroes, so I was happy to be a part of it.”—Shawn Smith

“This was truly an amazing event. I am not a ‘runner,’ but my I put on my cape and super mom outfit, and did it for the kiddos.” —Lula Williams

“The Superhero Run was a great way to build rapport with co-workers outside the office, and with others that were a part of the race. In addition, it was a great way to learn about CASA and the impact they have on many children and their families. Furthermore, it was a proud experience knowing that we were able to be a Superhero for a day, positive role models for the children that were a part of the event; while at the same time helping in the fight against child abuse.”—Sunni Wingate

“I really enjoyed having the opportunity to speak with

a CASA Representative about the services they provide and being provided with information about volunteering with CASA. It was great to share the experience with so many Superheroes who acknowledge the need to step up for abused and neglected children.”—Thelma Paris

“I was honored to be part of such a great cause and excited to be part of the awesome team of my coworkers, yet what stuck out for me was the support and encouragement I received with every step of the race. The exhilaration of the start, the cheers from the crowds and fellow runners, the dwindling of my energy and thinking I cannot go another step … yet

I kept going. Yes, this race was a success for CASA of Travis County, Williamson County and of Central Texas, however it was a success for me as well. I did it, I started and I finished and I was part of a team that encouraged me all the way.”—James Saucedo

The League of Extraordinary Probation Officers is looking forward to participating in local community events/runs in the future. Be on the lookout for calls to join the League.

Shootout!Nacogdoches County CSCD placed third in the

15th Annual CSCD Training and Shootout hosted by Burnet County.

Pictured from left to right: Dan Norton, Ken Brown, Cliff Williams and Mike Harmon


Brazos County CSCD Hits the RopesOn September 29, 2015 staff at the Brazos County CSCD spent the day at Challenge Works ropes course. They participat-ed in team building activities and were able to put their skills to the test on the ropes course. Pictured is the entire Brazos County CSCD staff posing in front of the course. CSO Diana Reyes and CSO David Saenz on the ropes course.

Tarrant County is Set to Launch New Misdemeanor DWI Court

On March 1, 2016 Tarrant County CSCD will launch a DWI Court for second offense misdemeanor DWI offenders, the Honorable Judge Deborah Nekhom. The main goal of the court is to prevent offenders from committing a third DWI offense, thereby protecting the community. Initially, the court will recruit offenders currently on community supervision for a second offense misdemeanor DWI and who are facing a motion to revoke of their current supervision. The Court will operate based on the Drug/DWI Court model which blends treatment, intensive supervision, judicial monitoring and the treatment team approach. Only offenders appropriate for and in need of treatment will be placed in the specialty court program. Once appropriately assessed by a clinician, the offender will be placed in the program. He/she will receive intensive supervision, treatment services, alcohol use monitoring, and will be required to appear in court. The DWI Misdemeanor Court is a collaboration among the Tarrant County Judiciary, CSCD, and treatment providers.

Correction

Apologies to Jennifer Gifford, a contributing author to the Fall 2015 journal, whose photo was inadver-tently left out with her article last edi-tion. Jennifer is an officer with Travis County CSCD.


INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONTRIBUTORS

Texas Probation, the quarterly journal of the Texas Probation Association, publishes articles, reports, book reviews, poems and prose, editorials, commentaries, obituaries, and news items of interest to community corrections professionals.

Texas Probation is published quarterly, in January, April, July, and October. Unless previously discussed with the editor, submissions should be received no later than the 15th day of the month preceding the publication month. Submissions for publication consideration should be typed on 8½ by 11 inch paper, double spaced, with at least one inch margins. Manuscripts exceeding one page in length must be submitted on a computer diskette, or by e-mail, in either MS Word or WordPerfect format. Persons submitting articles, commentaries, or book reviews should enclose a brief biographical sketch or resume and a photograph for possible inclusion. Specific questions concerning this procedure should be directed to Kelli D. Martin at 817-884-1222 or Karla Penate Kutch at 713-844-1724.

All submissions and/or other correspondence regarding Texas Probation should be sent to the following:

Kelli D. Martin, Co-EditorM.A. Research Unit Supervisor, TCCSCD 200 W. Belknap St.Fort Worth, TX 76196Office: 817-884-1222Fax: [email protected]

Karla Kutch, Co-EditorTexas ProbationBCCSCD North County Unit713-844-1724 or [email protected]

The Criminal Justice Center at Sam Houston State University serves as the Secretariat for the Texas Probation Association. Texas Probation is published by Sam Houston Press and Copy Center.

Editor/Co-ChairsKelli MartinKarla Kutch

Associate EditorsDr. Melvin Brown, Jr.

Jim Stott

MembersRodolfo Perez

Stephanie Christopher Priscilla SolisTodd JermstadErnest Perry

Darin Deutsch

COMMITTEE CHAIRS

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Adult LegislativeJaved Syed Dallas CSCDArnold Patrick Hidalgo County CSCDChris Thomas Jasper CSCD

Advanced EducationAngela Dugay Jefferson CSCDTracy Robinson Jefferson CSCD

Awards and ResolutionsLaTricia Coleman Jefferson JPDWill Hurley Wharton/Matagorda CSCD

Exhibitors Rick Morales Nueces County CSCDLaRonda Turner Jefferson County JPDKarma Chambless Matagorda CSCDKelly Tootle Jasper County CSCD

FinanceJerry Johnson Jefferson CSCD

Juvenile Legislative Lisa Tomlinson Johnson JPD

MembershipIris Bonner-Lewis Harris JPDRicky Trevino Nueces CSCD

NominationsKarma Chambless Matagorda CSCDJason Hickman Jasper CSCD

Political ActionJohn McGuire Fayette CSCDRon Zajac Brazos CSCD

Registration Sislai Gomez Dan Harman Brazoria County CSCDLupe Washington Brazos JPD

Sales Jennie Hoop Tarrant CSCDBrandi Nelson Johnson CSCD

Silent Auction Ana Rodriguez Cameron CSCDNorma Garcia Hidalgo JPDRita A Mascorro Cameron CSCD

Technology WebsiteJaime Torres Hidalgo CSCDFacebookRick Morales Nueces CSCD

Site Selection Aris Johnson Gregg JPDEd Cockrell Jefferson JPDChris Thomas Jasper CSCD

Organized 1974

Secretariat Since 1994

Sam Houston Press & Copy CenterPublisher Since 1995

Texas Probation AssociationCorrectional Management Institute of TexasGeorge J. Beto Criminal Justice CenterSam Houston State UniversityHuntsville TX 77341-2296

PRESIDENT’S LETTER ASSOCIATION ACTIVITIES …...2613 N. Guadalupe St. Seguin, TX 78155...

Documents

Transcript of PRESIDENT’S LETTER ASSOCIATION ACTIVITIES …...2613 N. Guadalupe St. Seguin, TX 78155...