PSYC3402 Midterm PDF

lOMoARcPSD|17775396 PSYC3402 Midterm Criminal Behaviour (Carleton University) Scan to open on Studocu Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected]) ...

lOMoARcPSD|17775396 PSYC3402 Midterm Criminal Behaviour (Carleton University) Scan to open on Studocu Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Defining Crime What is a crime? Crime is a socially constructed phenomenon o It is subject to variations Many crime are not universal over time or within culture o Ex. Abortions: were illegal, then made legal, now pushing to have it illegal again. Example: age of criminal responsibility o 7 years old - Ireland o 8 years old - Scotland o 10 years old - England and Wales o 12 years old - Canada o 13 years old - France o 14 years old - Germany o 15 years old - Sweden o 16 years old - Spain Muncie (2001): 11 separate definition of crime o Legal Offences prohibited by the state and punishable under law o Moral Violating norms of religion or morality, punishable by supreme beings. o Social Crime that violates norms and customs, punishable by the community o Psychological Crimes rewarding to the actors but harmful to others. Should consider changing understanding of acceptable norms in society (abortion, legal marijuana use) o Newman (1977) surveyed 6 countries and found that incest, theft, and robbery were consistently viewed to be criminal. Social construction of crime Consensus theory of crime: crime is defined in a manner broadly agreed upon by society. o Ex. We shouldn’t steal from each other. Conflict theory of crime: crime is determined by socially powerful groups. o Ex. War on drugs - who profits from it? Who doesn't? Working definition of crime "Criminal behaviors refers to intention behavior that violates a criminal code; intentional in that it does not occur accidentally or without justification of excuse" Includes intent, focuses on that legal definition of crime. Exceptions: child perpetuated antisocial behavior. need to have that age of criminal responsibility of 12yrs and older, and has to be intentional. Why should we care about definitions of criminal behavior? Influence crime statistics Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Definition relates to prevalence; prevalence relates to cost How can we study something if we don't first define it? Influence how we evaluate the impact of criminal justice interventions Why should we measure crime? 1. Aids in the evaluation of the criminal justice system o Ex. Researching if length of sentencing help reduces crime… 2. Facilities theory construction and evaluation 3. Impacts policy and our behavior o Ex. If crime is increasing, think about investing more money into the CJS and vice versa. Federal and provincial corrections o 4.6 billion a year 3.1 million Canadians formally involved in criminal justice system o i.e. a charge, conviction for some crime 8.3 million Canadians report being victims of crime annually A significant budget item for Canada and a significant concern to Canadians (after economy and health care) An example of costs Koegl and Day (2015) Followed a cohort of 386 juvenile offenders for 15 years starting 1986 Using official convictions, costs were $671 million Average aggregate costs per person was $5.86 million but ranged from $4 million to just over $16 million, depending on the trajectory (age of onset and persistence) Conclusion: a small group of lifetime offenders can have significant costs implications Costs depend on the crime type Public safety Canada (2022) Measuring Crime Statistics Prevalence The number of individual (i.e. case) at a specific point in time Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 o E.g. 189,549 adults were convicted of a criminal offence in 2019/2020 o At the individual level! Can be expressed by a rate (% or number of cases per 100,000) by dividing by appropriate population o In 2020, there was 31,015,938 people living in Canada that were 18 or over o 189,549/31,015,938 = 0.0061 0.61% prevalence rate or 6100 adults per 100,000 Prevalence rate - an example Source: Statistics Canada (2021) Statistics Incidence Number of crimes/events over a specified time period o Not at the individual level o E.g. over 2 million police-reported Criminal Code incidents (excluding traffic) in 2020 Can be expressed as a rate (usually per 100,000 o 5301 police reported crimes per 100,000 Canadians in 2020 An example In 2018, there were 834 instances of police-reported sexual assault in Ottawa committed by 332 individuals o Prevalence = 332 o Incidence = 834 Why both statistics? A small group of lifetime individuals commit most crime (not 1 for 1) TERMS Incidence: number of crime Prevalence: number of person Offending individuals or individuals experiencing crime (victims) Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Crime rates: make it more meaningful 20 homicides in Toronto vs. 20 homicide in Kingston Crime rates controls for the population Crime rates Controls for population size (per capita) Crime rate typically: o The number of crimes per 100,000 population o Can also be shown as a % X/100,000 = # of crimes/overall population o Ex: 100 in 100,000 or 0.1% 100/100,000 = 0.001 0.001 x 100 (to get the percentage) = 0.1% https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/subjects-start/crime_and_justice Crime severity index The CSI tracks in severity of police-reported crime from year to year o Will vary with changes in volume or average severity o Severity is determined by each crime being assigned a weight. More serious = higher weight Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Crime severity tends to increase going West and North (up). o Northwest territories has very high crime severity index, whereas the Maritimes are lower. Methods for gathering crime statistics 1. Official statistics o Uniform Crime Reporting Surveys (UCRS) measures police reported crime annually o 1962, revised 1988 and 1998, annual survey o Uses police reported crimes/documents to find out crime rates. 2. Victimization surveys o Victimization Surveys (General Social Survey, GSS) ages 15 and over. o 1985 and topic cycles completed every 5 years o Sample the population and ask them "have you been victims of crime?" 3. Offender self-reports o National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) o Began 1994, every 2 years; follows children from birth 0-7 and 14-17 years (PMK), 16 years (youth). Methodological Weaknesses 1. Official statistics o Mandatory reporting directly from police o Dark figure: Not all crime reported to police o Crimes perpetrated by children are excluded ( Neurotic Criminal o Harsh parenting, these types of criminals are thought to result from pathological levels of unconscious guilt. Criminal behavior develops as mechanisms to subconsciously invite punishment to resolve guilt. Weak --> Psychopathic o Where the superego fails to develop, cant regulate the instinctually need for the ID. Carry characteristics of psychopaths. Deviant --> Deviant identification o Can result in anti-social criminal. Parents are deviant, while time of them committing crimes = you will have deviant identification, will hold anti-social attitudes. String relationship between the two. The Gluecks Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Famous study comparing matched samples of 500 delinquent and 500 nondelinquent youth Interviews with boys, parents, and teachers Delinquency due to weak superego from faulty parenting o Code for a lack of conscience or moral compass Emphasis on family and parenting variables Acknowledged temperamental, physical, psychological and other variables Primary cause of delinquency: parenting factors The development of a mentally hygienic and properly oriented superego (conscience) must have been greatly hampered by the kind of parental ideals, attitudes, temperaments, and behavior found to play such a major role on the family stage of the delinquents. (Glueck and Glueck, 1950, p. 281) Social control theories of crime Most theoretical models of crime attempt to answer the question, “Why do they do it?” Social control theory attempts to answer the question, “Why don’t we all do it?” o Social processes compel people to conform and bind them to the social order. Early social control theories Stresses the importance of personal controls, particularly those provided by the family. o Social controls = ties to primary groups o Personal controls = internalized individually Absence of S&P controls = criminality ▪ Ex. Parents saying you shouldn't be a criminal. Family most significant in development of personal controls. o Children from close, cohesive family with prosocial values, unlikely to be delinquent. Social Bond Theory (Hirschi) Individuals more likely to turn to crime if their bond to society is weak or broken. Stresses the “four elements of the social bond” o Attachment: strength of emotional ties to others o Commitment: extent to which one pursues conventional goals o Involvement: how busy somebody is with prosocial activities o Belief: basically prosocial (i.e., conventional) values and morality, respect of societal value system (i.e., laws and law makers/enforcers) General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi) Level of self-control is thought to be stable throughout life and relate to quality of parenting: o Monitoring children’s behavior, are they doing good things? o Recognition of deviant behavior and punishment for it. o Appropriate discipline If you have that type of parenting, it leads to: Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 o Ability to delay gratification o Sensitivity to others o More willing to place restraints on activities Individuals with low self-control have a greater propensity to commit crimes when they have the opportunity to do so o Low self-control = impulsive, present-oriented, unstable relationships, low remorse for harming others o Poor self-control rooted in early childhood socialization Modern developmental theories Dynamic process All stages of life are important Early childhood --> adolescent delinquency --> adult criminal behavior Life-course persistent pathway The pathway consisting of delinquent individuals who display a persistent, life-long pattern of serious criminal and/or violent behaviour o High-risk environment o Offending is more pervasive and serious Adolescent-limited pathway Antisocial behaviour begins in adolescence and desists in young adulthood Normative offences Social mimicry Shifting reinforcement contingencies Age-Graded Theory of Informal Social Control: Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 individuals desist from crime when they are subject to informal social controls (jobs, relationships) These controls are age graded such that the value or effect increases or decreases at different points of the lifespan Other early childhood factors Childhood externalizing disorders (three main disorders: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, Oppositional defiant disorder, Conduct disorder) link to young onset of delinquency Parental practices Implications: Neurological differences Importance of temperament (emotions/behavior) Important of parents Importance of socialization Learning theories Learning is an adaptive process in which the tendency to perform a particular behaviour is changed by experience Criminal behaviour is under antecedent and consequent control Classical Conditioning Popularized by Watson and based largely on “Pavlov’s Dog” research Four components: i. Unconditioned stimulus (US) ii. Unconditioned response (UR) iii. Conditioned stimulus (CS) iv. Conditioned response (CR) Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Application to Criminal Behavior Eysenck’s “conditionability” Assumed that delinquent acts, such as theft, violence, and vandalism were essentially pleasurable or beneficial Why is everyone not a criminal? o hedonistic tendency to commit crimes is opposed by the conscience, which is a fear response built up from childhood in a conditioning process Conscience building process: o Child steals cookie (NS) and is disciplined (UCS) o Discipline elicits an UCR (feeling upset) o After a number of learning trials, the thought of stealing the cookie (CS) elicits an uncomfortable feeling (CR) o Diverse learning trials are experienced across childhood (leading to stimulus generalization) o Later, even contemplating a criminal act elicits the CR Eysenck believed that this doesn’t occur for criminals People who commit offenses = not built up strong consciences o Why? They have inherently poor condition-ability o Poor condition-ability is linked to Eysenck's three dimensions of personality: i. Extraversion (E) ▪ Condition response less level. Low cortisol arousal ii. Neuroticism (N) ▪ High on neuroticism also condition less well because they have a high resisting level of anxiety, this interferes with their conditions. Neuroticism acts as a drive, so it reinforces existing behavior tendencies. iii. Psychoticism (P) Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 ▪ Tend to be people who commit crime. o Referred to as a biosocial theory: nervous system functioning related to personality and impacts degree to which people learn from environmental stimuli Atypical sexual arousal patterns (e.g., fetishes) o Arousal paired with previously neutral stimulus Fetishes: e.g., shoes (not inherently arousing!) o Atypical sexual interests Masturbation satiation ▪ Common in the 90S ▪ Continue to masturbate after ejaculation (called refractory period) while thinking of deviant sexual interest = reduction in those sexual interests ▪ Olfactory aversion Directed masturbation ▪ Masturbate to legal sexual behaviors Classical Conditioning: An Example Sara is sexually harassed at school - Unconditioned Stimuli (UCS) Sara feels unsafe when she is sexual harassed - Unconditioned Response (UCR) Sara associates school with sexual harassment - Conditioned Stimulus (CS) Sara begins to feel anxious when she thinks of school - Conditioned Response (CR) Sara stops going to school Sara becomes ‘delinquent’ Operant Conditioning Skinner was a strong situationist o “All behavior is at the mercy of stimuli in the environment, and individuals have virtually no control or self-determination” All behaviors are promoted by the environment Reductionism: complex human behavior can be broken down into more simple behavior Operant Conditioning: learning either to perform or withhold a particular response because of its consequences o Reinforcement (Positive or Negative) Increase frequency of types of behavior o Punishment (Positive or Negative) Decreases frequency of types of behavior o “Extinction” The frequency of a behavior becomes zero due to a lack of reinforcement “Positive” refers to the application of a stimulus, “negative” its removal “Reinforcement” always increases behavior, “punishment” always decreases it Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Application to Criminal Behavior Positive Reinforcement o material gain o thrill/ adrenaline o positive peer responses Negative Reinforcement o reduction of fear/anxiety o removal of perceived obstacles or stressors Operant Conditioning: An Example Jimmy is hanging out with his friends at the local 7-11 Jimmy’s friends urge him to steal a chocolate bar, which he does. Jimmy leaves the store without getting caught(negative reinforcement) and his friends tell him how cool he is (positive reinforcement) After a week’s worth of stealing Jimmy gets elected leader of his gang! Implication for Forensics Criminal/Antisocial behaviors have developed through the same principles as any other behavior Antisocial/Criminal behaviors have some adaptive basis; maintained because reinforced Criminals have different reinforcement strategies and contingencies If criminal behavior is learned, criminal behavior can be replaced with more adaptive strategies to reach goals and can be unlearned. Negative environmental factors can be modified to promote more prosocial behavior. If we add consequences, there will be improvement of social behaviors. Application of Learning Theories to CJS Goal in CJS is to either increase a desired behaviour or decrease an undesired behaviour and draws quite heavily from the principles of operant conditioning. We can do this either by adding or subtracting positive or negative stimuli to behavior: o Giving prison sentence (+ punishment) o Taking away privileges in prison (- punishment) o Removing parole conditions (- reinforcement) o Token economy (+ reinforcement) Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Do you Think Prison Sentences Reduce Reoffending? No deterrent effect 16 studies (n = 981), r =.08 (95% CI [.06-.10]) Review of studies examining association between sentence length and recidivism Heterogeneous Some finding increases, some finding decreases in recidivism Consistent: all associations between sentence length and recidivism was small Social Learning Theory Learning not only by personal consequences but also by seeing others rewarded and punished (vicarious conditioning) Extends operant conditioning by including observational learning, cognition, etc. o We can learn by seeing others get punished. Suggests that to understand criminal behavior we must examine perceptions, thoughts, expectancies, competencies and values Learning principles work well for animals, but humans have complex cognitions that presumably influence behavior Social Learning Theory (Bandura) We learn primarily through observing and listening to people around us Idea is that cognition plays a role in our active decisions to engage or not engage in a particular behavior Vicarious learning and self-efficacy Differential Association Theory (Sutherland) Dismissed internal factors People learn to commit deviant acts through interpersonal interactions with their social environment. o Development of attitudes favourable toward crime + behaviours for committing crime from chronic exposure to delinquent peers P. 83 goes into 9 principles o Frequency (how frequently), duration (how long), status of the individuals (status with whom we associated), and how early these interactions occur in our development is key Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 In our associations with others we all learn values that are favorable or unfavorable to law violation A person becomes a criminal because the balance is in favor of associating more with antisocial others than prosocial others (i.e., principle of differential association) Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory (Akers) Integration of core elements of Skinnerian behaviorism, Bandura’s social learning theory, and Sutherland’s differential association theory Essentially people learn to commit deviant acts through interpersonal interactions in their social environment. Group interactions, as well as observational and vicarious learning is key o Personal reinforcement (operant) o Watching others be reinforced (vicarious) o Role models: parents, peers, media Personal, Interpersonal, and Community Reinforcement Theory Criminal behaviour is under the control of: o Antecedent events (precede the behaviour) & o Consequent events (follow the behaviour) These events then signal the rewards & costs (operant conditioning) that come from 4 sources: o Personal (the individual) o Interpersonal (other people) o Situational (the act itself & contextual aspects) o Community Impact of rewards and costs depends on personal and bio- social factors as well as background density of rewards and costs Thus, to predict and influence behaviour we need information on personal characteristics (personality and attitudes) and social situation (associates and density) The basic psychological processes: Learning Social influences Cognition Interrelationship between behaviour, thoughts and emotions Information processing Interactionism Personal, Interpersonal, and Community Reinforcement Theory Expected to explain all human behaviour o Whether criminal or non-criminal Important aspects to attend to o Past behaviour primes/influences behaviours that appear intentional or goal directed o Proximal vs. distal reinforcers Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 All broader influences are mediated through psychological processes o Example: socioeconomic status Canada, US, UK, and many other countries apply principles of PIC-R to their treatment of offending individuals o Attending to risk factors that reinforce criminal behaviour via personal, interpersonal, community routes o Focus of rehabilitation involves changing the nature of the costs & benefits associated with crime Currently: accepted theory of crime Summary Learning Outcomes 1. Describe and explain how psychodynamic, social control, developmental, and learning theories relate to crime 2. Describe and explain PIC-R Numerous psychological theories of crime exist, but they vary in terms of empirical support The theories explain crime by drawing on different psychological mechanisms The theories are often complementary (i.e., each theory offers something that other theories don’t) Integrated theories, which combine elements from multiple theories, are popular o PIC-R Despite empirical support, important to appreciate criticisms that have been raised about theories Common criticisms include issues related to methods, definitions, comprehensiveness, and causal ordering Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Criticism of Theories Despite empirical support, important to appreciate criticisms that have been raised about theories Common criticisms include issues related to methods, definitions, comprehensiveness, and causal ordering More specific criticism summarized next Glueck and Glueck’s Theory of Juvenile Delinquency Reasonable support, but: o Causal ordering of variables o Omission of key variables Criticisms of Hirschi’s Social Control Theory Largely supported, but: o Causal ordering of variables o Attachment to peers can lead to crime o Some social bonds (e.g., attachment) more important o Power of certain bonds vary across age and gender Criticisms of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime Largely supported, but: o Self-control not the sole cause of crime o Tautological problems (Why do people commit crimes? Low self-control. How do we know people have low self-control? They commit crimes) o Self-control not always stable (e.g., marriage Criticisms of the Biosocial Theory (Eysenseck) Some support, but: o Link between conditionability and socialization o Crime and personality types (not supported by empirical evidence) Criticisms of the Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory Some empirical support, but: o Not clear what is meant by favourable or unfavourable o How to measure ratio of favourable/unfavourable? o How to measure frequency, duration, intensity? o No statement about how learning occurs Criticisms of Akers’ Social Learning Theory Consistent support, but: o Causal ordering of variables o Too much weight put on peer associations rather than other forms of group interactions Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Criticisms of PIC-R Consistent support, but: o PIC-R includes amalgamation of multiple theories (so their criticism apply here too) + o Link between PIC-R and principles of effective correctional treatment is weak o Relationship between risk factor is vague (not well explained) E.g., antisocial peers antisocial personality Purpose of Risk Assessment Purpose From a criminal justice perspective, it informs: o Sentencing (e.g., D.O. hearings) o Security classification Min, max security o Parole decisions Make a decision based off of risk assessment. o Case management Treatment needs Treatment intensity Level of supervision Allows criminal justice professionals to promote public safety Allows criminal justice professionals to target scarce resources: o Canadian justice system has a large budget for institutions but not for community supervision. o Timing of treatment o Intensity of treatment How? By assessing people on risk factors Case management Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Describe risk factors Both are indicators of psychological constructs General Criminality Poor problem solving Complying with rules Prior crimes Dynamic risk factors Two main types: Stable dynamic: persistent and change slowly o Impulsivity o Poor cognitive problem solving skills Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Acute dynamic: rapidly fluctuating o Access to victims o Collapse of social support Unique risk factors Some risk factors are unique to specific crime types Domestic violence: jealousy, number of step-children, etc.. Sexual offending: sexual preoccupations, deviant sexual interests, stranger victims, etc… Generic risk factors Other risk factors generalize across crime types The "Big 4" risk factors: o Criminal history o Pro-criminal personality (impulsive, aggressive) o Pro-criminal attitudes o Pro-criminal associates Protective Factors Reduce chance of committing crime E.g., gun violence (Pardini et al., 2021) o 226 youth carrying guns, but only half committing gun violence o Protective factors: Concern for others, aspirations for work/family, adult social support, o Risk factor Substance use, rewards for crime, peer gun carrying (the more peers who carry guns, the more the risk to commit violence), committing other offences NOT Risk Factors Many variables are mistaken for risk factors: o Low socio-economic status o Personal distress/psychopathology (e.g., depression) o Verbal intelligence o Remorse or empathy o Denial o Loneliness Central Eight Risk Factor Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 1. History of Antisocial Behaviour o Early involvement in a number AND variety of antisocial activities o Increases self-efficacy beliefs about crime o Self-management strategies that are favourable to crime may become automatic / habitual o Offence severity/ victim injury NOT related 2. Antisocial Personality Pattern o Begins with childhood temperament o Impacts how individuals react to their environment o Impulsive (weak self-control); adventurous; pleasure-seeking; aggressive; callous disregard for others o 5-factor model (extraversion, openness to experience, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness): low agreeableness (hostile, jealous, self- centered); low conscientiousness (weak planning, irresponsibility) Helps understanding personality pattern. o Hare: interpersonal glibness; shallow affect; and lack of guilt 3. Antisocial Attitudes & Cognitions o Examples: Deficits in problem-solving Difficulty understanding others’ points of view Tolerance for rule violation Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Antisocial cognitions - your thoughts, attitudes, values, beliefs, rationalization that all favor crime. Including if there's a personal identity that favors crime or sees yourself as someone who breaks the law. This is one of the key targets for treatment programs regarding offending programing. 4. Antisocial Associates o Association with pro-criminal others AND isolation from anticriminal others can induce you to also commit crime. o Represent models for the behaviour social support for the behaviour (explicit or perceived) Directly influence internalized support for crime (pro-criminal beliefs) 5. Substance Use o Current or past problems with alcohol and/or drug abuse (current problem more of a risk factor than past problems) o Why is there a relationship between substance use and offending? o One of the most consistent predictors of recidivism. o Illegal substance indicates having criminal friends 6. Family / Marital Problems o Family of origin a major source of self-control skills attitudes, value, and beliefs approved associates early behavioral history o Marriage Greatly impact patterns of behaviour and available associates Reinforcement and punishment of behaviour Remember Hirschi’s social bonds (attachment to prosocial others, not just commit crime) 7. School / Work Problems o Important sources of rewards and costs o Emphasis on the quality of interpersonal relationships within both settings o Risk factor: low level of performance and low levels of rewards or satisfaction If we don’t feel productive, we do things that make us feel productive. Can be doing crime. 8. Leisure /Recreation o Low levels of involvement and satisfactions in anticriminal leisure pursuits o Remember Hirschi’s social bonds (involvement in conventional pursuits) Empirical Support Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Statistics for Evaluating Risk Assessment: Predictive accuracy and calibration Diagnosis vs Prognosis Diagnosis o Detecting presence/absence of a condition o Dichotomous decision o True state of affairs currently exists Ex. Pregnancy Prognosis o Predicting likelihood of an event in the future o No true state of affairs o Probabilistic Ex. What is the chance I will get pregnant within the next 2 years? Different levels of certainty Diagnosis: AUC of.80 is ‘good’ Prognosis: AUCs of.71 and above are large effect sizes (Rice & Harris, 2005) Different ways to communicate risk Diagnosis: Dichotomous Prognosis: Probability Risk Assessment: A Prognostic Task Prediction about future event that may or may not occur Risk is continuous dimension Dichotomous predictions have no role in risk assessment o ATSA Adult Practice Guidelines, 2014 HOW DO WE ASSESS THE ACCURACY OF RISK SCALES? Discrimination Accuracy - A.k.a Relative Risk How well does the scale differentiate recidivists from non-recidivists? o Higher scores should be associated with higher likelihood of recidivism Absolute rate of recidivism does not matter Is a higher risk offender more likely to reoffend than a lower risk offender? Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Two variables: Recidivism (dichotomous) and risk (ordinal or continuous) + maybe f/u time Options ROC (AUC) Survival curve Cohen’s d Measuring Accuracy 1. Receiver Operating Characteristics curve (ROC) o Allows us to calculate the Area Under the Curve (AUC) AUC background: 2x2 prediction table Reality Recidivism No recidivism Correct! Error! Recidivism True positive False positive (hit) (false alarm) Error! Correct! No recidivism False negative True negative (miss) Area Under the Curve (AUC) from ROC Graph For each possible cutoff value (score), plot false positive rate (x axis) as function of true positive rate (y axis) Connect points to make the curve We can then measure the area under that curve to get an overall measure of predictive accuracy (i.e., AUC) ROC and AUC used interchangeably in research Interpretation: It is the probability that a randomly selected recidivist will have a higher risk score than a randomly selected non-recidivist Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 AUC ranges from zero (perfect negative prediction) to 0.50 (chance) to 1.00 (perfect positive prediction) WHAT IS A GOOD AUC for ROC (Rice & Harris, 2005) o AUC of.56 = small effect size o AUC of.64 = moderate effect size o AUC of.71 = larger effect size AUC Advantages o Widely used and easily understood o Limited data required o Not strongly affected by base rate differences (variability in predicted variable Disadvantages o Affected by variability in predictor variable (Static scores) o Only measures the differences between recidivists and non-recidivists (ignores calibration) Cohen’s d – Standardized Mean Difference Measures the average difference between the recidivists and the non-recidivists, and compares this difference to how much recidivists differ from each other, and how much non-recidivists differ from each other. In math-ier words, the difference between groups divided by the standard deviation within groups (pooled) AUC and Cohen’s d can be computed from one another (online calculators) Cohen’s d 0 = no difference between recidivists and non-recidivists >0 = positive. Recidivists score higher Higher scores associated with higher recidivism < 0 = negative. Recidivists score lower Higher scores associated with lower recidivism Heuristics to interpret ds (Cohen, 1988) o.20 = small effect size o.50= moderate effect size o.80 = large effect size d of.15 is minimum for risk factor to be meaningful target for intervention/assessment o Mann et al., 2010 2. Survival Curve Analysis Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Examines the “survival rate” of a group of individuals after they have been released into the community from sentence Can compare survival curves of different subgroups Individuals with lower scores on the risk assessment should “survive” in the community for a longer period of time There is more! Other possible Statistics (Singh, 2013) Sensitivity Specificity Positive predictive value Negative predictive value Number needed to detain Number safely discharged Diagnostic odds ratio Problems with These Statistics Developed for diagnostic decisions (dichotomous) o Not appropriate for prognostic decisions o Inappropriate to use any risk scale to classify offenders as recidivists or non- recidivists Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 ‘High risk’ is not synonymous with ‘Going to recidivate’ (may be less than 50%) ▪ May just mean: this guy gets more intensive supervision Can be easily altered by increasing base rate (longer follow-up, higher base rate outcomes) Calibration Aka absolute risk Match between expected and observed rates 20.5% of individuals in routine/complete samples with Stactic-99R score of 6 will be charged or convicted of another sexually motivated offence within 5 years Evaluated by recidivism studies Specific to actuarial risk scales E/O Index Ratio of the expected number of recidivists to the observed number of recidivists o Perfect calibration E/O = 1. Interpreting ER/OR ER/OR = 1 o Number of recidivists matches predicted number ER/OR < 1 o Scale underpredicted recidivism ER/OR > 1 o Scale overpredicted recidivism 95% Cl does not include 1: significant difference between observed and expected recidivists An example: E/O index - 5 year sex recidivism Describe and Evaluate Risk Assessment Approaches Steps for risk assessment 1. Information gathering 2. Evaluate the presence of relevant risk factors o Risk and protective factors Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 oDynamic and static risk factors 3. Formulate a judgement of risk o Choose an approach Risk Assessment Approaches 1. Unstructured clinical judgement 2. Structured clinical/professional judgement (SPJ) 3. Actuarial risk assessment 4. Mechanical tool 1. Unstructured Clinical/Professional Judgement Gives the evaluator complete discretion over all aspects of the process, including information gathering, risk factor identification and operationalization, information synthesis, and making the judgment about risk. Based on practitioners’ clinical experience Advantages: Flexible: accommodates varied contexts and unusual cases Disadvantages: Inconsistent, Lower interrater reliability and accuracy; lacks transparency Evidence: Steadman & Cocozza (1974) 98 patients released against hospital advice Only 20 of the 98 reoffended at follow-up 2. Structured Clinical/Professional Judgement Prescribes the minimum information that must be gathered and identifies and operationalizes the risk factors that must be considered but gives the evaluator discretion over how to synthesize this information and make the judgment about risk The most commonly used method An example Historical, Clinical, Risk Management (HCR-20) Scale (Webster et al., 1997) Developed to assess risk for violence in civil psychiatric, forensic, and criminal justice populations 3 domains Historical (10 static items), clinical (5 dynamic items), and future (5 acute dynamic items) In addition to 20 set items, can include other case- specific information Maximum score is 40 1 of 3 risk levels (low, moderate, high) Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 HCR-20 Administration Code presence of risk factors Code case-specific risk factors Determine how risk factors should be combined Subjectively decide on level of risk (low, mid, high) Advantages Evidence-based risk factors; includes static and dynamic items; flexible; compared to unstructured clinical judgement, improved interrater reliability, accuracy and transparency Disadvantage Time-consuming and expensive to develop; may not exist for unusual cases Risk judgment: not clear what is meant by low, moderate, or high risk No probabilistic estimates of risk Less consistent than actuarial 3. Actuarial Method Prescribes all aspects of the process, including information gathering, risk factor identification and operationalization, and the rules for combining this information and making the judgement about risk. Risk factors and weight of the risk factor is based on the empirical relationships between risk variables and the criterion variable (i.e., violent , sexual and/or, general recidivism) Provides risk estimates (absolute probability of recidivating) Mostly static BUT can include dynamic items Risk/Needs scales: Actuarial scales that also contain dynamic items (in addition to static) o Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R; Andrews & Bonta, 1995) Assess the key components of PIC-R Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 General recidivism among adults (provides relative risk estimate AND absolute recidivism rates) 54 items (10 subcomponents) Reflects the Central Eight risk/need factors An Implementation Example Prior to considering LSI-R o 16.4% low-risk individuals placed into halfway houses After considering LSI-R o 51.2% low-risk individuals placed into halfway houses Note: All low-scoring inmates completed placement without incident (Andrews & Bonta, 2010) Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; Quinsey et al., 1998) Developed on a sample (n = 618) of individuals from Penetanguishene (aka Waypoint) in northern Ontario Consists of 12 weighted static risk factors (-26 to +38) Sum score and place individual within 1 of 9 risk bins (absolute recidivism rates) Predicts violent recidivism Other examples developed by the same research institute: o Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) o Domestic Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (DVRAG) o Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG) o For more information visit https://www.waypointcentre.ca/waypoint_research_institute Advantages: Less human bias; evidence-based risk factors; improved inter-rater reliability (i.e., consistent), accuracy and transparency; easy to use (e.g., recidivism estimates) Disadvantages: Time-consuming and expensive to develop; may not exist for unusual cases Instability of recidivism rates across samples Can static scale inform treatment? Not easily, but it can! Sebastien Brouillette-Alarie 4. Mechanical Collect pre-specified risk factors identified from theory or research (not empirical) Combine items into a total score and estimate probability of violence Essentially, a risk tool that has not been validated yet o Missing expected recidivism norms Mechanical Tool Example: PCL-R Hare (2003) o 20 items (examples): o Glib and superficial charm o Grandiose estimation of self o Lack of remorse or guilt Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 o Parasitic lifestyle o Impulsivity PCL-R Administration Code each item using 0, 1, 2 scale Sum score(s) and estimate probability of recidivism Advantages: Easy to use Consistent Relatively high accuracy (sometimes) Disadvantages: Not always accurate No probabilistic estimate of risk Validity for predicting risk Risk assessment approaches Meta-Analysis of predictive accuracy Levels of Predictive Accuracy Unstructured Clinical Judgments AUC = 0.55 Actuarial tools AUC =.68 to.80 Structured Professional Judgment AUC =.62 to.75 Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Why is SPJ Less Accurate? Adjusting actuarial scores appears to decrease accuracy (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009) Why? We don’t know (Helmus, 2016) Mixing risk factors with unrelated factors? Inappropriate weighting of new information? Biases? Risk Assessment: Standards and Guiding Principles Risk Assessment Standards Improve accuracy Reduce the errors we make as much as possible Improve transparency Clarity in the findings, better communication of the results Improve consistency Same standards for every case Do not use overrides! Overrides (AKA: Adjusted-actuarial approach) The risk assessment method that involves generating an initial judgment of risk using the actuarial method and then subjecting it to the evaluator’s professional discretion (i.e., professional override) Can increase or decrease score/risk label Hanson (2007) found that interrater reliability for override is no higher than chance, which suggests a lack of consistency in the factors clinicians rely on when exercising the override Studies suggest that family/marital issues, mental health problems, pro-criminal attitudes, and substance use is associated with higher probability to override (Helmus, 2020) Degrades predictive accuracy YLS/CMI (Schmidt et al., 2016) Adjusted scored predict less well AUC for the risk took YLS/CMI (Schmidt et al., 2016) Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Replicated in numerous tools and numerous type of correctional staff o Probation officers o Correctional officers o Psychologists o Intake staff Exception: Wormith et al. (2012), low risk sample o They found that upwards override decreased accuracy, whereas downwards override lead to increased predictive accuracy for sexual offenders Guiding Principles Good risk assessment practices should: Be evidence-based o tested prior to implementation Prefer structured over unstructured methods Consider all known major risk and protective factors Consider static and dynamic factors Conduct re-assessments at appropriate intervals Provide useful information to guide risk management strategies Items be objective and reliable Meaningful (items make sense) Sample representativeness Choices! General & violent offending LSI-R HCR-20 PCL-R & PCL:SV SIR-R1 VRAG MacArthur Classification Tree Youth offending PCL:YV SAVRY Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 YLSI EARL-20B & EARL 21G ERASOR Sexual offending SORAG Static-99R/Static-2002R Stable-2007 SONAR SVR-20 RRASOR MnSORT-R VRS:SO Domestic violence ODARA SARA Does it matter which one you pick? Different methods (actuarial, SPJ) Designed for different types of people Designed to predict different outcomes Not all can inform interventions Specialized scales perform best Even scales designed for the same purposes provide different answers (little consistency across instruments) Evaluating Risk Assessment Tools Most important: Predictive accuracy Does it predict recidivism? Also: Easy to train and use? Am I trained on it? How much time required? Consistency? Validation sample? How to Improve Accuracy? Multi-domain assessments Extending follow-up Retests (esp for dynamic) Multi-method assessments of criminal behavior o E.g., Dynamic + static factors o Multiple tools If multiple tool: use averaging Approaches to Communicating Risk: Risk Communication Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Ideal Risk Assessment Communicatiom Typically will report more than just a number Identify the potential consequences and ways to mitigate risk Estimation of level of risk Identification of risk factors Identify short and long-term changes in risk Identification of risk management strategies Identification of treatment targets Incorporate protective factors Engagement of offending individual in the process Appropriate communication of this information to decision makers Multiple Ways of Reporting Risk 1. Nominal categories (e.g.,Low, moderate, high risk) 2. Absolute probabilities 3. Relative percentile ranking 4. Relative hazard ratios Risk Information: Nominal Categories Growing research on how risk information is communicated and interpreted Clinicians, judges prefer non-numerical terminology (e.g., low, moderate, high) Little consensus on the meaning of non-numerical risk categories How the information is presented can affect how risk is interpreted Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Risk Information: Absolute Rates Absolute recidivism rates: Frequencies (e.g., the chance of reoffending is 10 out of 100) Percentages (e.g., 10% chance of recidivism) Qualified by a time period (e.g., over the next 7 years) Limitations: Larger denominators interpreted as higher risk (1 in 100 vs. 10 in 1,000) Who is more dangerous? Mr. Smith has a 30% chance of reoffending violently over the next 5 years. Mr. Black has a 70% chance of not reoffending violently over the next 5 years. Scurich & John, 2011 Risk Information: Relative Risk Relative risk estimates: Percentile ranks (e.g., the person is in the top 95% of other justice-involved people in terms of risk to violently reoffend) Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Risk ratios (e.g., 2.5 times more likely to violently reoffend compared to a typical justice- involved person) Limitations: Neglect the base rate: an individual can be in 95 th percentile of the scale, but that may only translate to 40% recidivism rate Example VRAG score: -17 (placing him in the 2 nd of 9 risk bins); 7 years=8%; 10 years=10% Mr. Smith’s score places him in the 2 nd of 9 risk bins. Assuming that Mr. Smith closely resembles the construction sample, similar scoring individuals reoffended at a rate of 8% within 7 years, and 10% within 10 years. Five-Levels Risk and Needs System Summary Learning Outcomes Describe the purpose of risk assessment Identify risk factors for criminal behaviour Describe statistics used to evaluate risk assessment Describe and evaluated risk assessment approaches Describe standards and guiding principles of risk assessment Describe and evaluate approaches to communicating risk information Summary Risk assessment is used throughout the criminal justice system to assist with important decisions Risk assessment is a prognostic task and it should be judged accordingly Both static and dynamic factors can be used to assess risk; many factors assumed to be related to risk aren’t Risk can be assessed using various approaches: unstructured clinical judgment, actuarial tools, structured professional judgment, and mechanical approaches Many risk assessment procedures now exist and it can be difficult to determine which one is most appropriate Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Numerous criteria can be considered, but a particularly important criteria is predictive accuracy Predictive accuracy is commonly assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis (AUC) In general, actuarial tools are associated with the highest level of predictive accuracy and unstructured clinical judgment associated with the lowest o...But you must be trained on the too Let’s Apply these Approaches to the Same Case Case Study: P.K. P.K. is male, and at the time of being released on parole he was 32-years-old; he is now 33-years-old Most recently, P.K. had been serving time for a sexual offence against a stranger, male child P.K. has been in and out of prison since his early 20s, for drug (x2 charges) or violent offences (x2 uttering threats). This was his first sexual offence. His childhood was also difficult, he was often in detention and he was a victim of physical abuse by his caregiver. Prison records show he frequently expresses remorse for his crimes, including his recent sex offence P.K. is a loner with self-esteem problems and has never had a long-term relationship with a woman or a man Prison psychologists have indicated that P.K. has problems with impulse control and substance use P.K. has always had a tough time holding down jobs (none more than 4 months), mostly because he has trouble with authority Just recently, P.K. got fired from his warehouse job for fighting with co-workers P.K. had been living with his mother, who he has a volatile relationship with, but she kicked him out at the age of 23 PCL-R score of 8 and does not meet any DSM disorders. Unstructured Clinical Judgement Place the individual in one of the following risk categories (risk for violent recidivism) o Low o Low-moderate o Moderate o Moderate-high o High Which factors did you consider and which did you place more weight on in making your decision? Structured Professional Judgement Apply the HVR-11, now what risk category would put this individual in? o Low o Low-moderate Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 o Moderate o Moderate-high o High HVR-11 coding Remember: final judgement allows you to take additional factors into consideration. What is your final risk judgement for violent re- offending? Low, Low-moderate, Moderate, Moderate-high, or High? o Which factors did you place more weight on in making your decision? Actuarial VRAG: https://www.knfp.ch/en/risk-assessment-tools/vrag ≤ -22 - Low -21 to -15 - Low-moderate -14 to -8 -7 to -1 - Moderate 0 to 6 7 to 13 - Moderate-high 14 to 20 - High 21 to 27 ≥ 28 What is your final risk judgement for violent re- offending? Low, Low-moderate, Moderate, Moderate-high, or High? Remember: Must consider how closely Mr. Johnson resembles the individuals from which the probabilities were derived. P.K. scores a [ ] on the VRAM. Assuming that P. K. closely resembles the construction sample, similar scoring individuals reoffend at a rate of [ ] within 7 years. Method Risk level? Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Unstructured SPJ Actuarial Moderate Punishment From learning principles o Deterrence Example of punishment in CJS o Impose longer prison sentences (including death) o Use prison sentences instead of community sentences o Punish ‘smarter’ (e.g., boot camps, shock incarceration, curfews, electronic monitoring) Why don’t these approaches work? Punishment is defined as a negative consequence to a behaviour that decreases the likelihood of the behaviour re- occurring We know that punishment can work to decrease behaviour (e.g., from lab-based studies) so why does it not work to decrease offending behaviour? 6 reasons why punishment doesn’t work in the CJS Reason 1 – Intensity: Low levels of punishment will decrease a behaviour but only temporarily When the behaviour returns more severe punishment is required to decrease it Results in an escalating cycle of punishment as tolerance increases Reason 2 – Immediacy: Punishment must immediately follow the behaviour we are trying to suppress If there are delays, the target behaviour may be reinforced and some other behaviour is punished Reason 3 – Consistency: Punishment must be delivered every time the target behaviour occurs until there is complete suppression This repeated pairing of punishment with behaviour allows the behaviour to become a signal of impending punishment Reason 4 – No escape: Escape routes must be blocked If an individual can get themselves away from the punishment and accomplish their objective by some other means, punishment has not really worked Reason 5 – Person variables: Person factors will influence the effectiveness of punishment o E.g., biological, cognitive, and state conditions, as well as a range of demographic variables (e.g., consider the psychopath who does not experience fear or anxiety) Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Reason 6 – Density: Density of punishment must be greater than the density of rewards Punishment may not be perceived to outweigh rewards So why do we keep punishing? People believe in the effect of punishment Politicians think that getting tough on crime is what the public wants Rehabilitation is seen as soft and ineffective It takes time and energy to evaluate programs, find they are not working, and initiate new programs Role of our CJS? Correctional Quackery Popularity of offending programs founded upon common sense rather than empirical evidence (i.e., boot camps, pet therapy, acupuncture, etc.) o Source: Gendreau et al. (2009) Restorative Justice What is restorative justice? An alternative approach to dealing with criminal behaviour “Crime is a wound, justice should be healing” (Zehr, 2002) Involves all stakeholders: victim, offender, community Collectively resolve how to deal with aftermath ‘Offender’ recognizes the harm done, accepts responsibility, and makes reparations (voluntary) Started being applied to lower level offending, and now starting to be used for more serious crime (violent, sexual, serious organized crime) The Process: Typical Steps Encounter o Victims, offending individual, community Amends o Offending individual expected to repair harm Reintegration o Restore victims and offending individual to full contributing members of society Inclusion o All parties with a stake must be asked to the table Types of approaches Limitation: little consensus on what defines an RJ program, but generally: o Victim Offender Mediation (conferencing)* o Victim Assistance o Restitution ($$) Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 o Community Service See NS video! Does restorative justice “work”? Increasing use across the world Increasing use for more serious offences Influx of research studies Inconsistent findings Generally: yes. Maybe a small effect for recidivism? Principles of Effective Correctional Practice The Rehabilitation Debate Martinson (1974) review o the “Nothing Works” review based on 231 studies o pessimistic, ending 150 years of optimism o concluded education and psychotherapy cannot reduce recidivism o highly influential Martinson (1979) re-analysis o reversed conclusion o some work, some don’t work, some are harmful Evidence mounts through 1980s-90s that rehabilitation can work (“what works”) Social and political confidence remains modest in Canada (Latimer & Desjardins, 2007) Change in focus Shift in treatment targets o 1970s: focus on reducing psychological symptoms Anxiety, self-esteem, depression o Today: focus on criminogenic needs Shift in type of program o 1970s: self-help groups and therapeutic communities o Today: skills-based programs Available for variety of treatment targets Available for variety of populations Meta-analyses and Reviews Juveniles (Garrett, 1985; Roberts & Camasso, 1991; Whitehead & Lab, 1989) Young adults (Dowden & Andrews, 1999; Lipsey, 1992, 1995) Sex offences (Alexander, 1999; Gallagher et al., 1999; Hall, Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 1995; Hanson et al., 2002; Polizzi et al., 1999) Violence (Dowden & Andrews Andrews et al. (1990) Arguably the most influential meta-analytic review o identified risk factors in literature o hypothesis: programs that target risk factors will reduce recidivism o tested 154 programs appropriate service unspecified service inappropriate service criminal sanctions only What Works! Conclusions from Meta-analyses On average, across all types of intervention o positive effect of rehabilitation o effect is small and modest (average r =.10) BUT: significant and large variation (heterogeneity) among effect sizes Variability in effect sizes Age differences o Treatment more effective for adolescents and adults compared to “young adults” o People below 15 (r =.16) o 15-18 years old (r =.11) o Over 18 (r =.17) Community vs. institution Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 o Best designed services have even greater benefit when delivered in community settings o Badly designed services are poor no matter what o Cannot account for differences in type of interventions provided, quality of delivery, and the way the programs are delivered Offence type o Less effective for property and drug offences o More effective for person offences o Unclear due to small sample sizes o Are property crimes more affected by environmental factors? Principles of Effective Correctional Practice Principles of effective correctional intervention The following principles appear to be among those that are most important: o Risk principle o Need principle o Responsivity principle o PIC-R identifies what you should treat, and how you should do it Risk principle Consists of two components: o Risk of re-offending can be predicted o Higher risk people should be provided with more intense (and extensive) interventions Why not rehabilitate everyone? o lower risk people have reduced potential for treatment gains o high intensity programs for low risk people may increase risk of offending (Andrews & Bonta, 2003) Program dosage considerations o more frequent sessions o longer program length Is there a minimum dosage? o Change unlikely if too short o CSC’s high intensity programs about 250 hours o 200 hours yields improvement for higher risk folks (Bourgon & Armstrong, 2005) Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Need principle Criminogenic needs: dynamic risk factors that, when changed, will affect the likelihood of re-offending Non-criminogenic needs: also dynamic and changeable but are unrelated (or at least weakly associated) with recidivism o What are non-criminogenic, again? Important: target multiple criminogenic needs Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Responsivity principle 1. General responsivity (cognitive-behavioural programming): o Clear and concrete objectives o Structured content o Focus on activity and acquiring skills o Personnel with high quality interpersonal skills who foster warm, collaborative relationships with clearly explained boundaries o Group modality (vs. individual) o Cognitive-behavioural in orientation Dimensions of Intervention A Primer: Cognitive-Behavioural Treatment Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Follows learning theory, so basic tenants: Cognitions and behaviours are learned Learning is dependent upon: i. signals of Reinforcers and Punishers ii. consequences of behaviour (Reinforcers and Punishers) (modeling) Consequences can come from inside or outside Situation affects everyone differently Responsivity Principle 1. Specific responsivity o Accommodate differences and diversity among participants, if barriers to treatment o Recognize that clients differ in motivation and readiness for treatment o Match therapist style to client’s circumstances RNR principles Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 RNR Principles: Best outcomes occur when adhering to all 3 principles Importance of Setting Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Summary Overarching Principles Respect for the Person Psychological Theory General enhancement of Crime Prevention Services CORE RNR Principles (In addition to RNR): Human service, not punishment Breadth (target many criminogenic) Assess Strengths Structured assessments Organizational Principles Community-based PIC-R staff practices Management of staff Next Steps Cross-cultural applicability o Responsivity issue Multi-cultural competency: fundamental for effective service delivery Culturally responsive programs must: o Understand cultural values and knowledge o Consultation with cultural knowledge holders Correctional Service of Canada have Indigenous and Inuit specific programs o Better at reducing recidivism than typical programs o What about other cultures? Effective Correctional Workers Effective correctional workers Relationship: Influence is greatest when the relationship is open, warm, enthusiastic, genuine, where there is mutual respect, interest, and non-blaming communication Structuring: Direction of influence (procriminal to prosocial) is determined by the content of messages, behaviour modeled, practiced, and appropriate use of rewards and costs For a correctional worker to be effective they must possess certain characteristics: o Ability to establish high quality relationships o Ability to effectively demonstrate anticriminal expressions (modeling) o Ability to reinforce the client’s anticriminal expressions (reinforcement) Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 They must disapprove of the client’s pro-criminal expressions (punishment) They must make appropriate use of their authority Core correctional practices: Refer to a constellation of staffing techniques and behaviours that include relationship practices, effective use of authority, prosocial role modeling, effective reinforcement, effective disapproval, and prosocial problem solving. Reductions in Recidivism Are we implementing correctly? Are we effectively implementing what we know? o programs unlikely to work if implemented haphazardly and without much forethought o process of implementation has been badly neglected (Gendreau et al., 1999) o Why structured approaches (manuals), staff training, and supervision so key Effective correctional workers Would you expect treatment providers that use polygraph be more effective at reducing recidivism than that do not use polygraph? Why? Would you expect psychologist led treatment to provide greater reduction in recidivism than treatment not lead by psychologists? Evaluate Effective Correctional Practice: Canadian Context World ranking in treatment effectiveness 1. New Zealand/Australia 2. Canada 3. UK 4. United States 5. Other international Let’s apply our learning to evaluate CSC programing Example: sexual offending programing Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Effectiveness of CSC Programming Overrides Degrade Risk Assessments Research consistently find that professional overrides degrade prediction CSC may be over-treating some men with sexual offending Overtreatment can lead to increase recidivism Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Effectiveness of Offending Treatment CSC Programming Unknown Studies on the previous format: found effective o New version has more sessions (mod: 55 vs. 62; high: 75 vs. 108) o Similar sexual offending domains + generic domains o Explicit requirements for risk tools o Fewer (no?) psychologists Inuit stream: higher completion rates (97% vs. 73%), similar recidivism rates than typical stream Summary Punishment does not reduce crime Restorative justice may not impact crime but it enhances victim and offender satisfaction and restitution compliance Offending rehabilitation has evolved considerably in the last 30 years thanks to Canadian researchers R-N-R is the best empirically-based model of offending rehabilitation Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Is it worth it? Do the financial benefits outweigh the costs? o victim-related expenses o justice-involved individuals - related expenses Example from Massachusetts (Prentky & Burgess, 1990) o 15% reduced risk of further victimization o net savings of $68,000 for taxpayers ALL reviews suggest win-win with lower cost and lower crime for programs that follow effective correctional practice Managing Justice-Involved Individuals: CUSTODIAL CLASSIFICATION Custodial Classification Canada o Based on Custody Rating Scale and: Public safety concern Escape risk concern Institutional adjustment concerns Prison Classification Versus Risk Assessment Classification focuses on prison custody levels, prison adjustment, escapes Traditional risk assessment focuses primarily on public safety/community recidivism Some factors overlap, some do not Custodial Classification: Not a risk assessment Approach Criterion Classification Custody level Prison adjustment Risk assessment Risk, new crime Factors Predictive of Prison Misconduct Current age o Older clients less involved in misconducts Gender o Women less involved in misconducts History of violence o Recent history predictive of continuation History of mental illness o More likely to be involved in misconducts Gang membership o Gang members more likely to be involved in misconducts Program participation Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 o Clients not involved in or not completing programs more likely to commit misconducts Recent disciplinary actions o Clients with recent misconducts are more likely to continue Canada: Custody Rating Scale A professional judgement tool o Assess past criminal history, history of institutional adjustment issues (do they get along), public safety concerns (type and frequency of crime), and any escape history Provides cut offs, but can override based on o Offence type: Murder/terrorism: always will start as max o Your own professional judgement. Should be due to (1) Public safety concerns; (2) Escape risk concerns; (3) Institutional adjustments concerns Reclassification Can also reclassify (reassess once every two years for med and max inmates) using Security Reclassification Scale (for men) and Security Reclassification Scale for Women + professional judgement Domains scored to cascade down in security: 1. placement in involuntary segregation 2. progress or motivation regarding correctional plan 3. presence of serious disciplinary offences 4. number of recorded incidents 5. number of successful escorted temporary absences 6. CRS incident history rating score 7. most recent level of pay 8. ever unlawfully at large (UAL) from temporary absence, work release, or supervision, 9. prosocial family contact. Implications Over-classification Under-classification (More clients at higher security) (More clients at lower security) Fails to meet CCRA More least security restrictive. incidents within prison. Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Subject to appeal Possibly higher escape rates resulting in greater public concern. More costly. Saves money Reduces parole grant rates. Applying it to a Case Custody rating scale Item-PART 1: INSTITUTIONAL ADJUSTMENT RATING Score 1. History of Involvement in Institutional Incidents a) No prior involvement 0 b) Any prior involvement i. in an assault (no weapon or serious physical injury) 1 ii. in a riot or major disturbance 2 iii. in an assault (using a weapon or causing serious physical injury) 2 iv. Involvement in one or more serious incidents prior to sentencing 5 and/or pending placement for the current commitment (includes incidents occurring while the inmate is awaiting completion of the Offender Intake Assessment) Item-PART 1: INSTITUTIONAL ADJUSTMENT RATING Score 2. Escape History a) No escape or attempts 0 b) An escape or attempt from minimum or police/peace officer custody with no actual or threatened violence: over two years ago 4 in last two years 12 c) An escape or attempt from medium or maximum custody or an escape from minimum or police/peace officer custody with actual or threatened violence: Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 over two years ago 20 in last two years 28 d) Two or more escapes from any level within the last five years 28 Item-PART 1: INSTITUTIONAL ADJUSTMENT RATING Score 4. Alcohol drug use (use item from DFIA-R or any other assessment) a) No identifiable problems – Drug/alcohol use does not occur, or alcohol is used in 0 socially acceptable situations. Drugs and/or alcohol were not used prior to the commission of the present or previous offence(s), or b) Abuse affecting one or more life areas – If the inmate’s use of drugs or alcohol has 3 been identified as negatively affecting at least one major area in the inmate’s life and/or drugs/alcohol were used prior to the commission of the present offence(s), or c) Serious abuse affecting several life areas – If most life areas are negatively affected 6 by drug and/or alcohol abuse, and they are used before the commission of present and past offences (e.g. there is a pattern). Item-PART 1: INSTITUTIONAL ADJUSTMENT RATING Score 5. Current Age a) 30 years or more 0 b) 29 2 c) 28 4 d) 27 6 e) 26 8 Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 f) 25 10 g) 24 12 h) 23 14 i) 22 16 j) 21 18 k) 20 20 l) 19 22 m) 18 years or less 24 Item-PART 2: SECURITY RISK RATINGS Score 1. Number of prior convictions a) None 0 b) One 3 c) Two to four 6 d) Five to nine 9 e) Ten to fourteen 12 f) Fifteen or more 15 Item-PART 2: SECURITY RISK RATINGS Score 2. Most severe outstanding charges (i.e., not yet convicted) a) None 0 b) Minor 12 c) Moderate 15 d) Serious 25 e) Major/extreme 35 Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Item-PART 2: SECURITY RISK RATINGS Score 7. Age at first federal admission a) 35 years or more 0 b) 34 3 c) 33 6 d) 32 9 e) 31 12 f) 30 15 g) 29 18 h) 28 21 i) 27 24 j) 26 27 Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 k) 25 years or less 30 1. minimum security: 0 to 85 on the institutional adjustment dimension AND 0 to 63 on the security risk dimension 2. medium security: between 86 and 94 on the institutional adjustment dimension and between 0 and 133 on the security risk dimension; OR between 0 and 85 on the institutional adjustment dimension and between 64 and 133 on the security risk dimension 3. maximum security: 95 or greater on the institutional adjustment dimension OR 134 or greater on the security risk dimension. Case Study #1 Agmed, aged 28, serving 3rd federal sentence for armed robbery. Drug addict who assaulted bank teller, shot at police during incident. Numerous criminal peers. Not remorseful for crimes. Escaped from police custody shortly after arrest and at large for 2 months. Previous breaches of bail on earlier provincial charges. During remand was involved in numerous assaults against other inmates, and once against staff. Presents as argumentative, hostile, and angry. Prior adjustment in prison was poor. CRS Part 1 is 84 and Part 2 is 100 What security level would you assign? Case Study #2 Mohammed, aged 28, serving 1st federal sentence for incest. University professor, no prior arrests or convictions. On bail for 18 months prior to sentencing. No community supervision violation. No problems in remand centre prior to getting bail. Worked in kitchen. CRS Part 1 is 2 and Part 2 is 30 What security level would you assign? o Low, Moderate, High Managing Justice-Involved Individuals: INTAKE ASSESSMENT Initial Assessment- CSC Upon conviction, sent to their Regional Reception and Assessment Centre o Not their final stay o Ontario: Joyceville Instution (Kingston) Initial Assessment- 8 stages Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Internal and External Prison Classification Systems External o Custody level placement (L,M,H) Internal o Cell allocation (single/double/dorm) o Program assignment (match criminogenic needs) Purposes of Assessment Tools Guide and structure decision-making Reduce bias Improve the placement of clients for treatment and public safety Manage clients in a more effective manner Respond to legal challenges Utilize resources more effectively Managing Justice-Involved Individuals: PRE-RELEASE DECISIONS Pre-release decisions Types of release o Conditional (early) release (day parole or full parole) o Statutory release after 2/3 sentence served o OR Special applications to detain until Warrant Expiry Date (WED) (no supervision unless they get a long-term supervision order during sentencing) 6 min Video: Parole decisions (Parole Board of Canada) Selection and Appointment of Board Members Applicants are pre-screened by Regional Vice Chair; candidates successful at written exam go to interview; successful candidates go on list. Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Appointed by the Minister (Privy Council Office - non-partisan, public service support to the Prime Minister and Cabinet). Since 1994 no appointments have been made to individuals NOT on the list. Factors considered in parole decision making Criminal history Sentence length Mental status* Performance on earlier releases Information from victims* Institutional behaviour Program performance Feasibility of release plans Source: Caplan (2007) Pre-release decisions PBC adopted Structured Parole Decision Making Framework (Serin et al., 2009) Revised Structured Parole Decision Making Framework Challenges in Parole Decision-Making Time pressure o 70-80 members, at least a third part-time, who make 20,000+ decisions a year (about 17,500 parole decisions) o People making time-pressured decisions tend to focus on the negative and be risk averse Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Members receive very little feedback on decisions o Leads to decision-making shortcuts, which can contribute to patterned rather than case-by-case decision-making o Only notified of negative cases (can results in overestimating risk) Responses to failure o Public and media response in the event of failures is strong o The only “safe” option to avoid re-offence is not to release Facts and Myths Is Community Supervision Effective? The Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision (STICS) Training probation officers to utilize the Risk, Need, and Responsivity model during their sessions Also had more core professional skills associated with effective correctional workers Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Reduction in recidivism (about 1/3 less recidivism) Issue: implementation (need to supervise staff and retrain staff) o Ontario and BC worked but replication in Alberta did not work o Small differences in skills, small differences in recidivism o Staff buy-in was low Decisions that rely on treatment possibility: DO/ LTO Preventative Legislation Purpose o Manage people who are seen to pose an increasing and unmanageable risk to the public (Petrunik, 1994) o Incarceration seen as the only means of protecting the public Dangerous Offenders Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Serious personal injury offence (SPIO) S. 753.1(a)(i) o pattern of repetitive behaviour that indicates a failure to restrain his/her behaviour + likelihood of harm o pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour that reveals a substantial degree of indifference o brutal nature; unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint S. 753.1(b) o failure to control sexual impulses leading to likelihood of harm Long-Term Offenders Same criteria as DO, however: o There is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community DO vs. LTO DO: high risk + no reasonable expectation of successful management/ treatment LTO: high risk + reasonable possibility of eventual control in community (2+ sentence plus up to 10 years supervision) Summary Two years or more: federal o Provincial: two years less a day; all vary in their procedures For federal sentence o Custody rating scale (a structured professional judgement) o Intake assessment Structured, time limits, somewhat validated Assess criminogenic needs + important non-criminogenic needs (mental health and medical needs) Release decisions o Conditional release you must apply for o Board members consider ‘all relevant available information’ Risk to reoffend Whether risk can be safely managed Whether release contribute to the protection of society by facilitating the justice-involved individual return to the community as law-abiding Any relevant gender, ethnic, cultural, or linguistic differences Release decisions (continued), speak to: o Social and criminal history o Reasons and types of offence o Individual’s understanding of the offence o Progress made/programs completed o Behaviour in the institution Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 o Actuarial tools o Release plan o Community supports o Victim statements Example exam question Explain the difference between a Dangerous Offender and a Long-Term Offender designation Module 1: Getting Started and Defining Crime Readings: Ch.1 pg. 1-14 (LO 1.1-1.4) and pg. 19-22 (LO 1.7) Learning Outcomes: 1. Define the key terminology for studying crime 2. Understand the key methodological concepts in studying crime 3. Describe the general crime trends in Canada 4. Explain what influences our perception of crime 5. Explain terminology used to explain factors associated with crime Module 2: Evolutionary and Biological Theories of Crime Readings: Ch. 2 Learning Outcomes: 1. Describe what makes a good theory 2. Describe biological perspectives on crime 3. Explain the basics of evolutionary perspectives of crime Downloaded by Evelyn Roberts ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|17775396 Module 3: Psychodynamic and Learning Theories of Crime Readings: Ch. 3 Learning Outcomes: 1. Describe and explain how psychodynamic, social control, developmental, and learning theories relate to crime 2. Describe and explain PIC-R Module 4: Risk Assessment Readings: Ch. 4 pg. 80-91 (LO. 4.3) Learning Outcomes: 1. Describe the purpose of risk assessment 2. Identify risk factors for criminal behaviour 3. Describe statistics used to evaluate risk assessment 4. Describe and evaluated risk assessment approaches 5. Describe standards and guiding principles of risk assessment 6. Describe and evaluate approaches to communicating risk information Module 5: Rehabilitation of Individuals Who Offend Readings: Ch. 4 (LO 4.4, 4.5 & summary; 91-107) Learning Outcomes: 1. Explain correctional punishment and describe the reasons why punishment does not work 2. Describe and evaluate restorative justice 3. Understand history of correctional practice 4. Describe effective correctional practice (RNR) 5. Describe effective correctional workers 6. Evaluate effective correctional practice (RNR) Module 6: Managing Criminal Behavior Readings: none! Learning Outcomes: 1. Explain difference betwe