James Bonta

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

The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model Does Adding the Good Lives Model Contribute to Effective Crime Prevention?

The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model has been widely regarded as the premier model for guiding offender assessment and treatment. The RNR model underlies some of the most widely used risk-needs offender assessment instruments, and it is the only theoretical model that has been used to interpret the offender treatment literature. Recently, the good lives model (GLM) has been promoted as an alternative and enhancement to RNR. GLM sets itself apart from RNR by its positive, strengths-based, and restorative model of rehabilitation. In addition, GLM hypothesizes that enhancing personal fulfillment will lead naturally to reductions in criminogenic needs, whereas RNR posits the reverse direction. In this article the authors respond to GLM’s criticisms of RNR and conclude that little substance is added by GLM that is not already included in RNR, although proponents of RNR may learn from the popular appeal that GLM, with its positive, strength-based focus, has garnered from clinicians over the past decade.

Offender risk assessment: Guidelines for selection and use.

During the past 20 years, there have been significant developments in the area of offender assessment. As a result, this knowledge has placed the field in a position to construct guidelines as to what should characterize useful and effective offender assessment instruments. The author’s suggestions as to what constitutes good assessment ranges from the noncontroversial (e.g., actuarial instruments) to the more contentious (e.g., lessening one’s reliance on static risk scales). Whether the reader agrees with the views expressed, it is hoped that the force of the empirical arguments will at least provoke some careful consideration rather than summarily dismissing them.

Exploring the Black Box of Community Supervision

ABSTRACT Community supervision has been an integral part of corrections since the establishment of probation more than 100 years ago. It has commonly been assumed that offenders benefit from community supervision much more than if they were incarcerated. However, empirical evidence in support of the effectiveness of community supervision in reducing recidivism questions this assumption. A detailed examination of audio taped interviews between 62 probation officers and their clients found relatively poor adherence to some of the basic principles of effective intervention–the principles of Risk, Need and Responsivity. For the most part, probation officers spent too much time on the enforcement aspect of supervision (i.e., complying with the conditions of probation) and not enough time on the service delivery role of supervision. Major criminogenic needs such as antisocial attitudes and social supports for crime were largely ignored and probation officers evidenced few of the skills (e.g., prosocial modeling, differential reinforcement) that could influence behavioral change in their clients. As a snapshot of present practices, this study begins a path to a systematic and structured training agenda to help probation officers become more effective agents of change.

A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program

Over the past 20 years, an increased understanding has been developed of what interventions do and do not work with offenders. Treatment programs that attend to offender risk, needs, and responsivity factors have been associated with reduced recidivism. There is also a recognition that sanctions without a rehabilitative component are ineffective in reducing offender recidivism. This study evaluates a cognitive-behavioral treatment program delivered within the context of intensive community supervision via electronic monitoring (EM). Offenders receiving treatment while in an EM program were statistically matched on risk and needs factors to inmates who did not receive treatment services. The results showed that treatment was effective in reducing recidivism for higher risk offenders, confirming the risk principle of offender treatment. The importance of matching treatment intensity to offender risk level and ensuring that there is a treatment component in intensive supervision programs is reaffirmed.

Reexamining the Cruel and Unusual Punishment of Prison Life

It has been widely assumed that prison is destructive to the psychological and emotional well-being of those it detains. However, this assumption has rarely been critically examined. The present report evaluated the evidence pertaining to the effects of imprisonment. Studies on the effects of prison crowding, long-term imprisonment and short-term detention, solitary confinement, death row, and the health risks associated with imprisonment provide inconclusive evidence regarding the “pains of imprisonment.” Rather, the evidence points to the importance of individual differences in adapting to incarceration. As the use of incarceration is unlikely to decrease in the near future, research on its effects is urgently needed and a situation-by-person approach may be the most fruitful research strategy.

Predictors of Recidivism among Incarcerated Female Offenders

Compared to male offenders, female offenders have received little empirical attention. This is particularly true in the area of offender risk assessment. Numerous objective risk scales have been developed and used for males, but very few for women. Two studies were conducted to investigate the predictors of female recidivism. The first study attempted to validate a risk scale developed on a male offender population and found poor generalizability. The second study explored additional possible predictors including victimization experiences. Once again, little progress was made. The implications for future research on female offender risk prediction and prison programming are discussed.

An Experimental Demonstration of Training Probation Officers in Evidence-Based Community Supervision:

The present study evaluated a training program for probation officers based on the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation. A total of 80 officers were randomly assigned to either training or a no training condition. The probation officers then recruited 143 probationers and audiotaped their sessions at the beginning of supervision, 3 months later, and 6 months later. The audiotapes were coded with respect to the officers’ adherence to the RNR model. The experimental probation officers demonstrated significantly better adherence to the RNR principles, with more frequent use of cognitive-behavioral techniques to address the procriminal attitudes of their clients. Finally, the analysis of recidivism rates favored the clients of the trained officers. The findings suggest that training in the evidence-based principles of the RNR model can have an important impact on the behavior of probation officers and their clients.

The Diversion of Incarcerated Offenders to Correctional Halfway Houses

Two studies were undertaken to (1) evaluate an attempt to divert inmates to correctional halfway houses, (2) cross-validate earlier research with the Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI) on a broader offender sample, and (3) explore improved methods of prediction by increased sampling of the criterion variable. In Study 1, the LSI was used to identify potential targets for diversionary intervention. Over two-thirds of the inmates assessed by the LSI as suitable candidates for correctional halfway houses were instead transferred to institutions. In Study 2, LSI scores were used to refer inmates directly to a halfway house review board for possible community placement. The results showed that inmates were transferred to the halfway houses earlier in their sentences, thus increasing the average length of stay in the houses with no increased risk to the community. Despite the use of the LSI to identify potential halfway house candidates, a large proportion of minimum-risk inmates were still transferred to institutions. The results from both studies suggest a tendency to overclassify inmates and that the use of an objective classification instrument can serve to minimize overclassification. In addition, the studies demonstrated predictive validity for the LSI with a representative sample of inmates and improved prediction with increased sampling of the criterion behavior.