Debby Andrews

Classification for Effective Rehabilitation: Rediscovering Psychology

Four principles of classification for effective rehabilitation are reviewed: risk, need, responsivity, and professional override. Many examples of Case x Treatment interactions are presented to illustrate the principles.

The Recent Past and Near Future of Risk and/or Need Assessment

The history of risk assessment in criminal justice has been written on several occasions (Andrews & Bonta, 2003; Clements, 1996; Hollin, 2002). Here we assess progress since Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge’s (1990; Andrews, Zinger, et al., 1990) statement of the human service principles of risk-needresponsivity (RNR) and professional discretion. In those articles, the corrections-based terms of risk and need were transformed into principles addressing the major clinical issues of who receives treatment (higher risk cases), what intermediate targets are set (reduce criminogenic needs), and what treatment strategies are employed (match strategies to the learning styles and motivation of cases: the principles of general and specific responsivity). General responsivity asserts the general power of behavioral, social learning, and cognitive-behavioral strategies. Specific responsivity suggests matching of service with personality, motivation, and ability and with demographics such as age, gender, and ethnicity. Nonadherence is possible for stated reasons under the principle of professional discretion. Expanded sets of principles now include consideration of case strengths, setting of multiple criminogenic needs as targets, community-based, staff relationship and structuring skills, and a management focus on integrity through the selection, training, and clinical supervision of staff and organizational supports (Andrews, 2001). The review is conducted in the context of the advent of the fourth generation of offender assessment. Bonta (1996) earlier described three generations of risk assessment. The first generation (1G) consisted mainly of unstructured professional judgments of the probability of offending behavior. A

What Works for Female Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Review

Although the question of what works for general offender populations has received considerable attention within the rehabilitation literature, very little research has examined female offenders. The present investigation examined the principles of effective correctional treatment for female offenders through a meta-analytic review. The results indicated that the clinically relevant and psychologically informed principles of human service, risk, need, and responsivity identified in past meta-analytic reviews were associated with enhanced reductions in reoffending.

The Importance of Staff Practice in Delivering Effective Correctional Treatment: A Meta-Analytic Review of Core Correctional Practice

Several meta-analyses have rendered strong support for the clinically relevant and psychologically informed principles of human service, risk, need, and general responsivity. However, each of these reviews has focused on specific program components and not on the characteristics of the staff or the specific techniques used to deliver the program. This meta-analytic review examines the role of core correctional practices in reducing recidivism and provides strong preliminary evidence regarding their effectiveness. Staff characteristics and training in core skills must be addressed to ensure the maximum therapeutic impact of correctional treatment programs.

Risk Principle of Case Classification in Correctional Treatment A Meta-Analytic Investigation

Recent meta-analyses have documented considerable evidence demonstrating that correctional treatment programs are indeed effective for reducing recidivism in offender populations. The effect of client risk, an issue that has received extensive coverage in the extant literature from an assessment perspective, has been relatively ignored in these efforts. The present study marks the first exhaustive meta-analytic investigation of the risk principle and its effects on correctional treatment program effectiveness. The results reveal moderate support for its utility, although the magnitude of the findings are affected by the reporting practices used in the primary studies. Finally, the evidence supporting the risk principle is much stronger for female offenders and young offenders and within programs that are deemed appropriate according to the principles of need and responsivity. It should be noted that justice interventions that did not include elements of human service (e.g., increased sanctions) yielded negative results regardless of level of client risk.

A Commentary on Ward and Stewart's Model of Human Needs

Tony Ward and Claire Stewart (Ward and Stewart, 2003) set out to persuade the reader that our risk /need model has some serious shortcomings that can be corrected by giving universal needs a central role in the understanding of criminal behaviour. We welcome such a debate on the relevance of various models to explain criminal behaviour. However, that debate should be structured by respect for evidence. In 1986, Frederick Crews was alarmed by the attacks against logical positivism by ‘‘structuralists, post-empiricists, deconstructionists and other invading hordes’’ (Crews, 1986, p. 36). The idea that the validity of knowledge is rooted in its testability was under assault and the primary weapon was theoreticism. Theoreticism is the acceptance or rejection of knowledge in accordance with one’s personal views and not in accordance with evidence. Ward and Stewart’s arguments may not be pure theoreticism but it comes close to it. Theoreticists use two techniques to further their points of view (Andrews and Bonta, 1998). First, they ignore or discount evidence that supports the model that they oppose. Second, theoreticists present only the evidence that supports their own views or, if they have no evidence to prop up their views, theoreticists can resort to arguments that are difficult to test and even challenge. These two techniques are apparent in Ward and Stewart’s analysis of the risk /need model and the presentation of their own model of human needs.

An Overview of the Psychology of Criminal Conduct

This chapter provides an overview of the psychology of criminal conduct (PCC), whose objective is to understand variation in the criminal behavior of individuals. The understanding sought is empirical (research based), theoretical (explanatory), and practical (applied). There are substantial individual differences in criminal behavior that are evidenced through a variety of research approaches from around the world in a variety of biological and social contexts, such as those associated with age, race, gender, and socioeconomic class. PCC is a major part of criminology and has a vast storage of knowledge to draw upon from general human psychology and, in particular, from a general personality and cognitive social learning psychology. PCC seeks a general, holistic, and truly interdisciplinary understanding of variation in the criminal behavior of individuals that all disciplines, professionals, and the public find valuable. Professionally, a psychology of criminal conduct involves the ethical application of psychological knowledge and methods to the practical tasks of predicting and influencing the likelihood of criminal behavior and to the reduction of the human and social costs associated with crime and criminal justice processing.

Editorial: Managerial Communication

THE CORE of this issue consists of a Focus on Teaching column devoted to communication instruction in MBA programs. It’s the first time the column editors have taken on this topic, although BCQ has published other articles on managerial communication over the years. With this Focus column, we’d like to announce a major journal initiative to investigate best practices in communication instruction in MBA programs in the US and abroad. We’re particularly interested in internationally oriented programs-although perhaps all top programs these days see themselves on an international

Prevention and Rehabilitation

This chapter provides an overview of how mainstream criminology and criminal justice reached the conclusion that the literature on the effectiveness of prevention and correctional programming supported a “nothing works” position. It describes recognition of the value of human service in justice contexts (that is, the debate moved toward a “what works” position). The chapter discusses “what works and what does not work” from the perspective of different theoretical accounts of criminal behavior. The justice contexts in which treatment is provided include community and institutional corrections, as well as the young offender and adult systems. The justice context most often involves imposition of some type of judicial sanction. The chapter deals with “rehabilitation,” “reintegration” or “correctional treatment,” and reduced recidivism. The purposes of judicial sanctioning include retribution and/or restoration. Retributive justice is concerned with doing harm to offenders. Restorative approaches seek justice through efforts to repair harm done to the victim, to restore the community that may have been offended or disrupted by the criminal act, and to hold the offender accountable. Specific deterrence is intended to contribute to reduced recidivism. Finally, the chapter summarizes the meta-analytic evidence in regard to the effectiveness of adherence with the risk-need-responsivity model.

Prediction of Criminal Behavior and Classification of Offenders

This chapter focuses on the prediction and classification of risk associated with criminal behavior. The prediction of criminal behavior is one of the most central activities of the criminal justice system. It is at the root of community safety, prevention, treatment, ethics, and justice. It helps in predicting who will reoffend guides, police officers, judges, prison officials, and parole boards in their decision making. To predict an individuals future criminal behavior weigh heavily upon the use of dispositions, such as imprisonment and parole. In prison, probation, and parole systems, one of the major purposes of offender risk assessment is the classification of offenders into similar subgroups in order to assign them to certain interventions. The most common type of classification is based upon risk level, which is categorized into more three groupings: low-, medium-, and high-risk groups. Prediction is enhanced through knowledge of theory. The principles of risk, need, and responsivity are reflected in offender assessment. Fourth-generation assessments are integrated with the case management of offenders. The various issues raised by prediction are relevant to the concerns of citizens.