A journal of correctional philosophy and practice - USCourts.gov
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
SEPTEMBER 2014
a journal of correctional
philosophy and practice
SPECIAL FOCUS ON: THE RESPONSIVITY PRINCIPLE IN
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
Reconsidering the Responsivity Principle: A Way to Move Forward
By Guy Bourgon, James Bonta
The Neglected “R”—Responsivity and the Federal Offender
By Thomas H. Cohen, Jay Whetzel
Health Coverage for People in the Justice System: The Potential Impact of Obamacare
By Risdon N. Slate, Laura Usher
Addressing Responsivity Issues with Criminal Justice-Involved Native Americans
By Ada Melton, Kimberly Cobb, Adrienne Lindsey, R. Brian Colgan, David J. Melton
Second Generation of RNR: The Importance of Systemic Responsivity in Expanding Core Principles of Responsivity
By Faye S. Taxman
Does the Risk of Recidivism for Supervised Offenders Improve Over Time? Examining Changes in the Dynamic
Risk Characteristics for Offenders under Federal Supervision
By Thomas H. Cohen, Scott W. VanBenschoten
Is Project HOPE Creating a False Sense of Hope? A Case Study in Correctional Popularity
By Stephanie A. Duriez, Francis T. Cullen, Sarah M. Manchak
Response to Duriez, Cullen, and Manchak: Theory and Evidence on the Swift-Certain-Fair Approach to Enforcing
Conditions of Community Supervision
By Mark A. R. Kleiman, Beau Kilmer, Daniel T. Fisher
Before Adopting Project HOPE, Read the Warning Label: A Rejoinder to Kleiman, Kilmer, and Fisher’s Comment
By Francis T. Cullen, Sarah M. Manchak, Stephanie A. DuriezADVISORY COMMIT TEE
members
a journal of correctional Dan Richard Beto
philosophy and practice National Association of Probation Executives
Huntsville, Texas
PUBLISHED BY James Byrne
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts University of Massachusetts, Lowell
Lowell, Massachusetts
Judge John D. Bates, Director
Honorable James G. Carr
Matthew G. Rowland, Chief United States District Court
Probation and Pretrial Services Office Toledo, Ohio
Federal Probation ISSN 0014-9128 is dedicated to informing its readers about current Alvin W. Cohn
thought, research, and practice in corrections and criminal justice. The journal welcomes Administration of Justice Services, Inc.
the contributions of persons who work with or study defendants and offenders and invites Rockville, Maryland
authors to submit articles describing experience or significant findings regarding the
prevention and control of crime and delinquency. A style sheet is available from the editor.
Ronald P. Corbett, Jr.
University of Massachusetts Lowell
Federal Probation is published three times yearly—in June, September (on a special topic),
Lowell, Massachusetts
and December. Permission to quote is granted on the condition that appropriate credit is
given the author and Federal Probation. For information about reprinting articles, please
contact the editor. Thomas Henry
Seton Hall University
Subscriptions to Federal Probation are available from the Superintendent of Documents at South Orange, New Jersey
an annual rate of $16.50 ($22.40 foreign). Please see the subscription order form on the last
page of this issue for more information. Magdeline Jensen
CEO, YWCA of Greater Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Tim Murray
Pretrial Justice Institute
Washington, DC
E D I T O R I A L S TA F F Honorable David D. Noce
United States District Court
Nancy Beatty Gregoire, Executive Editor St. Louis, Missouri
Ellen Wilson Fielding, Editor
Daniel B. Ryan
Justice Solutions Group
Federal Probation Lakeville, Minnesota
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Washington, DC 20544 Faye Taxman
telephone: 202-502-1651 George Mason University
fax: 202-502-1677 Fairfax, Virginia
email: Ellen_Fielding@ao.uscourts.gov
Marie VanNostrand
Senior Consultant, Luminosity, Inc.
Postmaster: Please send address changes to St. Petersburg, Florida
the editor at the address above.September 2014 1
THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF
This September’s issue of Federal Probation contains a special section on “The Responsivity Principle in Community Corrections.”
Responsivity, third in the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model of offender assessment and rehabilitation, has been less researched, less
well understood, and therefore less widely or well implemented in the community corrections arena, where the past few decades have
seen increasing efforts at most levels of community corrections to find or develop reliable dynamic risk assessment tools and evidence-
based treatment and supervision methods.
Bookending this special focus section are two articles by authors well recognized as leaders in RNR research who first
summarize what responsivity has meant and means and then suggest fruitful new ways to think about and apply it. In their opening
article, “Reconsidering the Responsivity Principle: A Way to Move Forward,” Guy Bourgon and James Bonta emphasize that “Although
client attributes provide context, responsivity is…creating an optimal learning environment for the client,” which necessarily involves
considerations of both client attributes and those of clinicians as well. The concluding article by Faye Taxman on “Second Generation of
RNR: Expanding Emphasis on Responsivity,” presents a (realizable) vision of an “overarching (correctional and treatment) system [that]
needs to embrace these principles to support individual-level programming.”
In between these are three articles concerning more localized or specific aspects of Responsivity. In “The Neglected “R”—
Responsivity and the Federal Offender,” Thomas H. Cohen and Jay Whetzel use data on federal offenders to discuss the relationship
between federal offender demographics and responsivity, the extent to which the presence of responsivity factors varies across the federal
judicial districts, and implications for possible use of Second Chance Act funds. Risdon N. Slate and Laura Usher consider opportunities to
better address physical and mental health responsivity issues in “Health Coverage for People in the Justice System: The Potential Impact of
Obamacare.” And Ada Melton, Kimberly Cobb, Adrienne Lindsey, R. Brian Colgan, and David Melton consider what we know and don’t
know (and how we might come to know more) in “Addressing Responsivity Issues with Criminal Justice-Involved Native Americans.”
In years to come we can expect to see much more on this topic both as it applies to community corrections in general and to
federal corrections in particular. Meanwhile, we think this Special Focus section offers a solid understanding of where the Responsivity
Principle comes from and how it is currently understood to operate, while sketching promising avenues for research and practice in the
future—all in pursuit of the best possible outcomes for communities and the offenders who return to them.
—Ellen Wilson Fielding
Editor, Federal Probation
SPECIAL FOCUS ON: The Responsivity Principle in Community Corrections
Reconsidering the Responsivity Principle: A Way to Move Forward 3
The authors summarize the impact of the Risk-Need-Responsivity model on correctional practice, trace its history (with special
emphasis on the responsivity principle), review how the responsivity principle has come to mean simply a consideration of client
characteristics in the absence of the environment where the work takes place, and then discuss how to forward a constructive
research agenda on the responsivity principle.
Guy Bourgon, James Bonta
The Neglected “R”—Responsivity and the Federal Offender 11
The authors address some of the knowledge gaps in the presence and types of responsivity factors for federal offenders under
community supervision, focusing on their frequency and the forms they take. They also examine the distribution of responsivity
factors by risk and supervision levels, the relationship between federal offender demographics and responsivity, the extent to
which the presence of responsivity factors varies across the federal judicial districts, and implications for possible use of Second
Chance Act funds.
Thomas H. Cohen, Jay Whetzel
Health Coverage for People in the Justice System: The Potential Impact of Obamacare 19
The authors examine the potential of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) to assist criminal justice agencies in helping uninsured
individuals involved in the justice system to enroll in health care, with special attention to people living with mental illnesses, a
responsivity factor that can present particularly difficult supervision issues.
Risdon N. Slate, Laura Usher2 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 78 Number 2
Addressing Responsivity Issues with Criminal Justice-Involved Native Americans 24
The authors focus on how probation and parole officers are ensuring that they address responsivity factors of Native American (NA)
youth or adults on their caseloads throughout the supervision process. Since there are few NA-specific studies on responsivity, the authors
discuss what is needed to expand knowledge in this area along with selected findings from a survey of probation and parole officers
conducted by the American Probation & Parole Association (APPA) and the American Indian Development Associates, LLC (AIDA).
Ada Melton, Kimberly Cobb, Adrienne Lindsey, R. Brian Colgan, David J. Melton
Second Generation of RNR: The Importance of Systemic Responsivity in Expanding Core Principles
of Responsivity 32
From the many unanswered questions about responsivity, the author selects these two to focus on: 1) What decision criteria should
be used to further integrate risk and need principles into practice? and 2) What type of programs should be in place to meet the
risk-need profiles of offenders? Answers should advance the practice of responsivity, which in turn should increase the receptivity
of offenders to programming, since responsivity requires programs to address individual crime-producing behaviors.
Faye S. Taxman
Does the Risk of Recidivism for Supervised Offenders Improve Over Time? Examining Changes
in the Dynamic Risk Characteristics for Offenders under Federal Supervision 41
In order to assess how federal offenders fare during their supervision term, the authors tracked a population of 21,152 offenders placed
on federal supervision from May 2010 through October 2013. The study found that many offenders initially classified at the highest
risk levels moved to a lower risk category by their second assessment and that these changes were mostly driven by improvements in
offenders’ employment and substance abuse-related dynamic factors.
Thomas H. Cohen, Scott W. VanBenschoten
Is Project HOPE Creating a False Sense of Hope? A Case Study in Correctional Popularity 57
Project HOPE uses certain but non-severe graduated sanctions to specifically deter probationers from violating supervision conditions,
especially drug use. The authors explore the sources of HOPE’s “correctional popularity” and argue that several uncertainties may
potentially compromise its effectiveness in other jurisdictions. They caution that correctional popularity risks exacting a high cost when
promising, if not unproven, programs are adopted rather than alternative evidence-based strategies.
Stephanie A. Duriez, Francis T. Cullen, Sarah M. Manchak
Response to Duriez, Cullen, and Manchak: Theory and Evidence on the Swift-Certain-Fair Approach
to Enforcing Conditions of Community Supervision 71
The authors respond to Duriez et al.’s caveats about Project HOPE by arguing that swift-certain-fair (SCF) sanctioning improves on conventional
practice in enforcing the conditions for community corrections both by substituting swiftness and certainty for severity and by increasing the
predictability, and thus the perceived fairness, of the process from the offender’s viewpoint. SCF has both firm theoretical grounding and a
growing body of empirical support, making it a useful complement or substitute for expensive and laborious formal risk-needs assessments.
Mark A. R. Kleiman, Beau Kilmer, Daniel T. Fisher
Before Adopting Project Hope, Read the Warning Label: A Rejoinder to Kleiman, Kilmer, and Fisher’s
Comment 75
The authors of the Duriez et al.’s critique of incautious adoption of Project HOPE-style community supervision conclude this exchange
by offering five warnings regarding its as-yet unproven record, identifiable weaknesses, and likely negative outcomes for offenders and
community supervision agencies.
Francis T. Cullen, Sarah M. Manchak, Stephanie A. Duriez
DEPARTMENTS
Contributors to This Issue 78
The articles and reviews that appear in Federal Probation express the points of view of the persons who wrote them and not necessarily the
points of view of the agencies and organizations with which these persons are affiliated. Moreover, Federal Probation’s publication of the articles
and reviews is not to be taken as an endorsement of the material by the editors, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, or the Federal
Probation and Pretrial Services System.September 2014 3
Reconsidering the Responsivity
Principle: A Way to Move Forward*
Guy Bourgon
James Bonta
Public Safety Canada
THE RISK-NEED-RESPONSIVITY (RNR) responsivity principle has been a poor cousin. Level of Service Case Management Inventory
model has arguably become the premier model There are many reasons for this situation, (LS/CMI; Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith,
of offender assessment and rehabilitation two of which are the ease of conducting 2004). Meta-analyses of the LS literature have
(Cullen, 2012; Ogloff & Davis, 2004; research on risk and need compared to found the instruments to predict both general
Polaschek, 2012). The RNR model made its responsivity and the vagueness of the original and violent recidivism (Campbell, French, &
published debut in 1990 (Andrews, Bonta, & conceptualization of responsivity by Andrews, Gendreau, 2009; Gendreau, Goggin, & Smith,
Hoge, 1990), with the first empirical test of Bonta, and Hoge (1990). In this paper, we 2002; Olver, Stockdale, & Wormith, 2014) and
the principles published a few months later attempt to improve our understanding of the prison misconducts (Gendreau, Goggin, &
(Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendreau, responsivity principle and provide suggestions Law, 1997). Additional quantitative reviews of
& Cullen, 1990). In the Andrews, Bonta and to furthering research on responsivity. First, the instruments have found them applicable
Hoge paper, four principles were presented however, we summarize the impact of the to women (Smith, Cullen, & Latessa,
with respect to offender treatment. The first RNR model on correctional practice. Next, 2009) and Aboriginal offenders (Wilson &
three principles dealt with the who, what, we trace the history of the RNR model with Gutierrez, 2014). In a recent meta-analysis by
and how of offender rehabilitation. The risk special emphasis on the responsivity principle. Bonta, Blais, and Wilson (2014), the risk-need
principle stated that the intensity of treatment Following this discussion, we review how the domains measured by the LS instruments
should be matched to the risk level of the responsivity principle has come to mean were predictive of both general and violent
offender, with the greatest amount of treatment simply a consideration of client characteristics recidivism for mentally disordered offenders.
services being directed to the higher-risk in the absence of the environment where the With such evidence, the LS instruments have
offender. The need principle dictated that work takes place, such as therapist/helper become the most widely used offender risk/
treatment goals should be the criminogenic characteristics and skills. We then end the need instruments in the United States (Vose,
needs that are functionally related to criminal article with a discussion of how we can Cullen, & Smith, 2008), Canada (Wormith,
behavior. The responsivity principle directed forward a constructive research agenda on the Ferguson, & Bonta, 2013) and internationally
service providers to use cognitive-behavioral responsivity principle. (Bonta & Wormith, in press).
techniques to bring about change while Turning to the rehabilitation literature,
being attentive to individual factors such The Impact of the RNR Model support for the risk principle can be found in
as personality, gender, and motivation. The on Correctional Practice the meta-analysis by Andrews and Dowden
fourth principle was the override principle, Today, the research support for the RNR (2006). Over 200 treatment studies produced
which called for professional discretion in model goes far beyond a handful of studies. 374 unique effect size estimates. As expected,
cases where behavior could not be explained There is such a breadth of research on the the mean effect size was .03 with lower-risk
with existing knowledge. principles as they apply to offender assessment cases; delivering treatment services to low-
Since 1990 the RNR model has expanded and treatment that meta-analytic reviews of risk offenders has little impact on recidivism.
to include many more principles (Andrews the evidence are common. With respect to Treatment for higher-risk offenders yielded a
& Bonta, 2010a; 2010b), but the principles of RNR-based offender assessment, we have the mean effect size of .10. Although the meta-
risk, need, and responsivity remain at the core. Level of Service (LS) family of instruments analysis showed only a modest effect of
Most of the research has focused on the risk such as the Level of Service Inventory-Revised treatment with higher-risk cases, the authors
and need principles, while the research on the (LSI-R; Andrews & Bonta, 1995) and the hypothesized that this may have been due
*Correspondence addressed to Guy Bourgon, Public Safety Canada, 340 Laurier Ave. W., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0P8. Telephone: 613-991-2033. FAX: 613-
990-8295. Email: Guy.Bourgon@ps.gc.ca. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the views of Public Safety Canada.4 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 78 Number 2
to the inexact way that risk was measured risk/need factors are called criminogenic interventions (Bonta, Bourgon, Rugge, Scott,
(e.g., first offender=low risk) and the way that needs and are viewed as the more desirable Yessine, Gutierrez, & Li, 2011; Lowenkamp,
offender risk was reported in the studies (risk targets of treatment intervention. For Holsinger, Robinson, & Alexander, 2014)
could be estimated only in the aggregate for example, a treatment is more likely to lead but also for developing offender assessment
88 percent of the effect size estimates). More to reduced recidivism when the target is instruments such as the LS instruments
recent tests of the risk principle with actuarial procriminal thinking rather than poor self- described earlier. Third, the RNR model
measures of offender risk at the individual esteem. Dowden’s (1998) meta-analytic review provides a strong rehabilitative model with
level have been supportive of the risk principle found that programs targeting criminogenic “explanatory depth” to explain why programs
for adult offenders (Bourgon & Armstrong, needs displayed a mean effect size of +.19, work (Polaschek, 2012). This is not surprising
2005; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005; Sperber, compared to an average effect size of –.01 for given that the RNR model is derived from an
Latessa, & Makarios, 2013), female offenders interventions that targeted non-criminogenic empirically rich social learning theory (Pratt,
(Lovins, Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Smith, 2007), needs. Since then, researchers have continued Cullen, Seller, Winfree, Madensen, Daigle,
violent offenders (Polaschek, 2011) and sex to find that matching services to offender Fearn, & Gau, 2010). Finally, interventions
offenders (Lovins, Lowenkamp, & Latessa, criminogenic needs is associated with reduced based on RNR principles are cost-effective
2009; Mailloux, Abracen, Serin, Cousineau, recidivism (Vieira, Skilling, & Peterson-Badali, (Drake, Aos, & Miller, 2009; Romani, Morgan,
Malcolm, & Looman, 2003). 2009; Vitopoulos, Peterson-Badali, & Skilling, Gross, & McDonald, 2012; Taxman, Pattavina,
Evidence for the need principle is also 2012; Wooditch, Tang, & Taxman, 2014). & Caudy, 2014).
extensive and comes from two sources: The general responsivity principle, use of The popularity of the RNR model, in
1) offender assessment, and 2) offender cognitive-behavioral techniques, has a well- our opinion, is well founded. Our empirical
treatment. In the area of offender assessment, established empirical record. The effectiveness understanding of the risk and need principles
Andrews and Bonta have long argued that of cognitive-behavioral interventions with is solid. Where we need more research is on
a distinction must be made between static offenders has been the conclusion of a number the responsivity principle. Before we speak
and dynamic risk factors (Andrews, 1982; of meta-analytic reviews of the literature to what needs to be done, we turn to a brief
Andrews & Bonta, 1994; Bonta, 1996; Bonta (Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Wilson, summary of the origins of the responsivity
& Motiuk, 1985). Furthermore, an assessment Bouffard, & MacKenzie, 2005). However, principle and its present status.
of dynamic risk factors, particularly those the research on specific responsivity has
dynamic factors that Andrews and Bonta not been as extensive. The relatively little The Early History of the
(2010a) refer to as part of the Central Eight research conducted has focused on differential Responsivity Principle
risk/need factors (Table 1), is crucial for treatment effects as a function of the personal- The development of the RNR model and its
effective rehabilitation programming. biological-social characteristics of the client. umbrella theory, the psychology of criminal
Empirical support for the predictive validity Examples are offender motivation for conduct, began in the 1970s. Partly as a
of the dynamic risk/need factors can be treatment (Kennedy & Serin, 1999), gender response to Martinson’s (1974) so-called
found in a number of meta-analytic reviews. (Hubbard, 2007), ethnicity (Usher & Stewart, “Nothing Works” conclusion, a small group
These dynamic risk/need factors have been 2014), and race (Spiropoulos, Salisbury, & Van of correctional psychologists in the Ottawa
shown to predict recidivism for male and Voorhis, 2014). There are very few studies on area began to challenge the idea that offender
female offenders (Andrews, Guzzo, Raynor, how the personal characteristics of the change rehabilitation is ineffective. Two classmates
Rowe, Rettinger, Brews, & Wormith, 2012), agent or the specifics of the interventions who began a lifelong friendship in 1962 as
Aboriginal offenders (Gutierrez, Wilson, impact client outcome. We will return to this psychology interns in Kingston Penitentiary,
Rugge, & Bonta, 2013; Wilson & Gutierrez, issue shortly. Don Andrews and Paul Gendreau, were
2014), and mentally disordered offenders Adherence to the RNR model has joined by Robert Ross, James Bonta, Robert
(Bonta et al., 2014). We have already noted a number of benefits. First and foremost, Hoge, Stephen Wormith and others to become
the literature on the LS instruments, which following the RNR principles is associated what Paula Smith (2013, p. 71) referred to as
measure the Central Eight risk/need factors. with reductions in recidivism (Andrews & the “Canadian School of rehabilitation.” All
The second source of evidence for the need Bonta, 2010a, 2010b; Koehler, Lösel, Akoensi, were interested in understanding not only
principle is found in the offender treatment & Humphreys, 2013). Second, the model has whether treatment can be effective in reducing
literature. Within this literature, dynamic practical value not only for designing new recidivism but also why. Soon after Martinson’s
dismissal of offender rehabilitation, Gendreau
TABLE 1. and Ross published a number of narrative
Number of Offenders in the Re-arrest During Supervision Statistics by Month reviews of the literature concluding that
Criminal History treatment can indeed be effective (Gendreau
Antisocial Personality Pattern (early onset of antisocial behavior, procriminal attitudes, previous & Ross, 1979, 1981).
failure on parole/probation, history of violent behavior) The first published formulation of
Procriminal Attitudes the responsivity principle appeared in
the 1990 article by Andrews, Bonta, and
Procriminal Companions
Hoge. However, the intellectual roots of the
Family/Marital (generalized family dysfunction, marital strife) responsivity principle could be found in the
Education/Employment (level of education, unemployed, conflict at work) need to match clients to specific “therapeutic”
Substance Abuse (alcohol and drugs) environments (although this is generally true
for all of the RNR principles, we focus here
Leisure/recreation (lack of prosocial activities)September 2014 RECONSIDERING THE RESPONSIVITY PRINCIPLE: A WAY TO MOVE FORWARD 5
on the responsivity principle). For quite some 1. Know the client’s attributes that limit and/ So what evidence would one consider that
time, the psychotherapy/counseling literature or facilitate the client’s learning style. These tests responsivity efforts? Within a context
was well aware that no one mode of therapy are bio/psycho/social factors. Examples of of certain client attributes, it must be found
or type of therapist was equally effective with biological factors are race, age/interpersonal in the learning environment created by the
all clients and that the interaction of therapist, maturity, and gender. Psychological factors service provider. The first indication that a
technique, and client needed to be considered may include intelligence, personality (e.g., responsive environment is in place would
(Clavert, Beutler, & Crago, 1988; Paul, 1967; impulsive; interpersonally insensitive), be increases in the client’s engagement in
Stein & Lambert, 1984); this remains an issue emotions (e.g., anxious), and poor the services. Specific behavioral indicators of
to this day (Norcross & Wampold, 2010). motivation. Examples of social factors are treatment engagement can be lower attrition
An early illustration of differential poverty and culture. Some client attributes rates, increased program attendance, client
outcomes as a function of client characteristics may be a mix of factors (e.g., a client from participation in “rehabilitative” activities (e.g.,
and treatment modality in corrections is a racial minority has biological factors on-topic discussions, exercises, role plays,
provided by Grant’s (1965) evaluation of a operating and perhaps social factors in the completion of homework assignments), and
psychodynamic-oriented intervention case of minorities living in poverty). client acknowledgement of the personal
with inmates. The first general finding was 2. Create an optimal environment conducive benefits of the services received. In essence, the
that client factors such as anxiousness and to learning. Learning in this context is very client wants to be involved in the services and
interpersonal maturity moderated outcome. broad; it is the acquisition of knowledge and demonstrates behaviors illustrating engagement
Inmates who were less anxious, verbally skills. To create such an environment, the in rehabilitative activities. A conducive learning
skilled, and more mature benefited from first requirement is for the service provider environment begins with the engagement of
the psychodynamic intervention. Second, to understand what client characteristics the client in that environment.
therapist characteristics were also important. can affect his or her ability to learn. Next, The second indication of a responsive
Therapists who were interpersonally skilled the service provider creates the environment environment would be greater amounts of
and more collaborative in their approach with through his or her skills, language, and “learning” what is being “taught.” Learning
the more difficult clients had better outcomes intervention activities that encourages may be reflected in the recall of the materi-
than therapists who were less skilled and client engagement in the learning activities als (for example, key constructs, concepts,
more authoritarian. and promotes efficient and effective client and skills) relevant to their own lives and
By 1990 there was sufficient research learning of what is being taught. circumstances, and utilization of the skills
for Andrews and his colleagues to make in hypothetical (for example, role play exer-
two general conclusions with respect to Beyond Client Characteristics: cises) and/or real life situations outside of the
responsivity. First, cognitive-behavioral Creating an Optimal Learning treatment environment. At a minimum, the
treatments are more effective than other Environment learning is specific to the content of the service
types of treatment. And why would we We believe it is time to more thoroughly consider or program where the “knowledge” or “skills”
expect any different conclusion? After all, what exactly adherence to the responsivity would vary depending on the treatment tar-
behavior is learned through classical and principle means. In other words, what is the gets. They may include skills required to
operant conditioning and vicarious learning responsivity principle attempting to achieve in address criminogenic needs, enhancing client’s
principles. Andrews et al. (1990) described its own right, distinct from adherence to the strengths, and even increasing the use of com-
this as the general responsivity principle. risk and need principles? To date, adherence munity and personal resources. For example,
Second, as suggested by the earlier cited to the RNR principles has been tested and the “learnings” may be the content of a good
evidence on differential outcomes, we must evaluated primarily by the effects on recidivism job resume, self-regulation of anger, using
consider client and therapist characteristics in (i.e., re-offending) and various concomitant time-out, or executing a relapse prevention
our treatment interventions. This is what was behaviors (e.g., police contact, substance use, plan for certain targeted criminogenic needs.
termed specific responsivity and much of the noncompliance with conditions, and behavioral For non-criminogenic treatment targets, the
description of specific responsivity dealt with misconduct; Hubbard, 2007; McMurran, 2009; learnings may be enhanced knowledge and
client characteristics such as interpersonal Messina, Grella, Cartier, & Torres, 2010). practice of a cultural activity, or knowing and
sensitivity, anxiety, verbal intelligence, and However, the heart of the responsivity principle using self-affirmations to increase self-esteem.
motivation. There was relatively little said in is in the environment created by those providing With the emphasis on the creation of
the 1990 article about therapist characteristics services. It is not just any environment; it is a an environment conducive to learning, a
and skills. As we will argue later, too much “learning” environment, a place where change more responsive service begins with enhanced
emphasis has been placed on client factors is promoted and initiated. The risk and need client engagement, followed by facilitated
and not enough on therapist characteristics principles provide specific direction to achieve learning of what the service is attempting to
and skill level. a goal of reducing reoffending (i.e., provide “teach,” and ends in greater impacts on the
To summarize, the responsivity principle services to higher-risk clients and target needs treatment target(s). It is within this context
is all about delivering human services that empirically related to reoffending). Responsivity, of the treatment targets that there exists the
target criminogenic needs in a way that is however, is about how to deliver services that potential impact on re-offending. We use
understandable and resonates with the higher- are conducive to engagement and learning. We the word potential for a reason. Treatment
risk client. The goal is to optimize the client’s believe that an independent test of adherence to target(s) fall under the umbrella of the need
learning of new thoughts and behaviors. the responsivity principle would only distally, if principle and not the responsivity principle.
Adherence to the responsivity principle requires at all, involve its effect on reoffending. If the treatment targets are criminogenic
the following two general considerations:6 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 78 Number 2
needs, then and only then would there be an active change strategy” (Miller, 1985, p. skills and intervention techniques (EPICS:
an expectation that the responsive service is 88) and MI focused on the processes and Smith et al., 2012; STARR: Robinson et al.,
more efficient and potentially more effective operations that influenced that probability. MI 2012; STICS: Bonta et al., 2011). Although the
in reducing reoffending. Reduced reoffending is about creating a “responsive” environment results of these initiatives are promising, from
would be mediated through enhanced to enhance treatment engagement behaviors, a responsivity perspective these projects offer
engagement and learning and targeting the yet it is not cognitive-behavioral therapy in ample opportunity to identify and examine
client’s criminogenic need. However, if the the sense that its goal is to teach recovery or different responsivity accommodations to
treatment target is non-criminogenic, then we relapse prevention skills (Miller & Rose, 2009). “learning environments” (i.e., officer-client
would hypothesize that a responsive service, Putting aside whether or not MI is effective at interactions) and their impact on discrete
or for that matter a nonresponsive service, changing a vast array of the problem behaviors responsivity outcomes such as engagement
would have no effect on reoffending. (such as substance abuse and smoking), there and client learning.
When “responsivity” efforts are measured is ample empirical work on MI demonstrating Finally, the literature on MI and CCP
simply by reduced reoffending, we miss an that MI does enhance treatment engagement highlights what is often referred to as the
opportunity to gain a better understanding with non-offenders (Hettema, Steele, & Miller, MI spirit; a collaborative, person-centered
of responsivity; that is, identifying specific 2005; Lundahl & Burke, 2009; Lundahl, Kunz, form of guiding clients (Miller & Rose,
and concrete actions that we as service Brownell, Tollefson, & Burke, 2010) and 2009). From a responsivity perspective, the
providers can do to create a more “responsive” offenders (McMurran, 2009). learning environment is one of collaboration
environment. Responsivity is about how Regardless of the debate surrounding the to enhance client engagement and learning.
we promote client engagement and client theoretical underpinnings of its construct Collaboration is implicated in the work
learning most efficiently and effectively. As of motivation, from a simple and pragmatic on the therapeutic or working alliance. A
Serin, Lloyd, Helmus, Derkzen, and Luong point of view, the successful implementation considerable body of research illustrates the
(2013) note, there is a significant gap in the of MI skills, techniques, and spirit creates importance of the relationship between helper
research on the process and measurement of an “environment” that increases treatment and client, distinct from the intervention
change, particularly in regards to the various engagement. There is also supporting techniques (see Horvath & Symonds, 1991,
components or “learnings” inherent in the evidence that MI enhances learning that takes for a comprehensive review). In corrections,
change process itself, such as basic knowledge, place during treatment. From reviews on the work of Jennifer Skeem and colleagues
and the application and internalization of a MI noted earlier, MI’s effect on problem is demonstrating the importance of the
program’s key concepts and skills that lead to behavior is strengthened when it is added as therapeutic alliance to offender supervision
changes in need and a reduction of risk. a prelude or adjunct to a formal treatment (Skeem, Louden, Polaschek, & Camp, 2007).
program. What we like about MI is that it They have found the alliance to have a
Responsivity—Enhancing is prescriptive about what to do to create an significant association with client resistance,
Engagement and Learning optimal learning environment, specifying the motivation, cooperation, and compliance with
Enhancing engagement and learning is not helper’s behaviors (e.g., skills, techniques, supervision conditions—what we consider as
a new issue in correctional rehabilitation. and activities employed during sessions) and primary responsivity outcomes.
For those working in the criminal justice informing them of what to do and how to do The working alliance may in fact be a
field, it is widely acknowledged that there is it while interacting with a client. The primary good outcome proxy for engagement, and the
a challenge to recruit criminal justice clients target—engagement rather than the more focus of responsivity research can be directed
for treatment, retain them in the service for distal outcome of problem behavior change to identifying the skills and activities that
the program’s entirety, and have them engage (such as substance use or re-offending)—is are required to build and strengthen such
actively and “learn” the critical components specific to the outcomes of responsivity. an alliance (e.g., listening, empathy, firm but
of the service. Although a number of studies Although the roots of MI were first fair approaches). The accumulated evidence
directly and indirectly evaluate different published in 1985, there is much similarity related to engagement and learning suggests
“learning environments,” let us describe a between MI skills and the techniques of that creating and maintaining a collaborative
few that speak directly to responsivity and its Core Correctional Practices (CCPs) first environment (through MI, CCPs, and
impact on engagement and learning. reported in the early 1980s (Andrews, 1979; relationship-building skills) appears to be
Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a set of Andrews & Kiessling, 1980). The CCPs another general practical guideline to creating
concrete and specific skills, techniques, and that “change agents” use when working responsive environments for clients beyond
strategies designed to create an environment with offenders were the cornerstone of the the use of cognitive-behavioral techniques.
that addresses treatment failure (i.e., failure responsivity principle. Delineated between Creating a collaborative environment appears
to attend, engage, complete treatment) by a relationship dimension (e.g., warmth, to be a global characteristic of a responsive
increasing motivation (Miller, 1985). empathy, and enthusiastic and non-blaming environment that facilitates engagement
Although today we consider increasing communication) and a structuring dimension at a minimum and, ideally, efficient and
motivation as strengthening a client’s (e.g., effective reinforcement, problem solving, effective learning. Much of the work with
commitment to change (Miller & Rollnick, modeling, and rehearsal), the early studies on sex offenders by Marshall and colleagues
2014), where commitment and motivation CCPs focused on their impact on recidivism highlights the importance of cooperation and
are dynamic and internal, Miller’s (1985) (Dowden & Andrews, 2004). Trotter (1996) collaboration (as opposed to a confrontational
conceptualization was behaviorally based. and more recently probation officer training environment) to enhance engagement and
Motivation was defined as “the probability initiatives in the U.S. and Canada have focused participation in treatment (Marshall & Serran,
of entering, continuing, and complying with on learning CCP, MI, and other fundamental 2000; Marshall, Ward, et al., 2005). FutureSeptember 2014 RECONSIDERING THE RESPONSIVITY PRINCIPLE: A WAY TO MOVE FORWARD 7
responsivity research would benefit from behavior, self-harm). Moreover, in addition to evaluating human services to improve their
avoiding the myopic view that recidivism cognitive-behavioral and psycho-educational efforts. We believe that it is time to re-direct our
outcome is the means to evaluate responsivity techniques, the GRT used intervention research efforts from “does it work” to looking
efforts and place primary emphasis on the approaches that may better engage women inside the black box of rehabilitation with a
impact on client engagement and learning. in the counseling process (e.g., relational and focus on the nature and characteristics of the
experiential techniques). The three major learning environment, including the interactions
The Interrelationship of Risk, outcomes of drug use, reincarceration, and inherent in human service delivery.
Need and Responsivity length of stay in residential aftercare all favored We are certainly not the first in corrections
There are a number of instances where respon- the GRT group. to look inside the black box of treatment
sive services include efforts at addressing What can we say about this study and its (Bonta, Rugge, Scott, Bourgon, & Yessine,
what are considered non-criminogenic needs. adherence to the risk, need, and responsivity 2008). William Marshall and his colleagues have
There is the work on gender responsive treat- principles? At first glance, it appears that this strongly advocated examining the “therapeutic
ment and culturally specific programming study speaks largely to the need principle. environment” and provide clinical guidance on
(e.g., here in Canada, providing treatment to Although the GRT targeted non-criminogenic how to engage and facilitate learning for sex
Aboriginal clients). The mix of gender/cul- needs (e.g., memories of trauma and offender treatment (Marshall et al., 2005; Marshall
tural factors and treatment targets illustrates childhood victimization), it also targeted more & Serran, 2010). They advocate supportive
the blurring of lines between the need princi- criminogenic needs than the TC. The women rather than confrontational approaches,
ple and the responsivity principle. Specifically, in the GRT were treated not only for substance emphasize approach goals rather than avoidance
if the primary question is the effectiveness of abuse (common to both programs) but also for goals, and encourage creating a positive and
the gender/cultural factors at reducing reof- targeted family (of origin and intimate partners), collaborative environment. These factors can be
fending, then the debate is about whether peers (i.e., social supports), and attitudes (i.e., tested. However, the outcomes of interest must
or not these unique needs of specific groups thinking that lead to a variety of dysfunctional focus on engagement and learning indicators
are criminogenic in nature (i.e., conform to and/or delinquent behaviors). The finding that prior to examining recidivism effectiveness.
the need principle). On the other hand, if the the GRT women stayed longer in residential Independent tests of responsivity within
primary question is one of engagement and aftercare suggests a treatment dosage effect the treatment or human service would ideally
learning for the client involved in the service (risk principle) and greater engagement in compare two treatments of equitable/equivalent
regardless of whether the program focuses on treatment (responsivity principle). Although individuals (i.e., equal adherence to risk
criminogenic or noncriminogenic needs, then we do not know how much, the women in principle) in which both treatments targeted
the question asked relates to the responsivity the GRT received some cognitive-behavioral identical needs (i.e., equal adherence to the
principle. treatment (general responsivity), and they need principle) but differed on the learning
It is recognized that female offenders are were exposed to therapeutic approaches that environments within each program (e.g., helper’s
different from male offenders (Blanchette & enhanced their learning (specific responsivity). behaviors, conceptual scheme used, skills
Brown, 2006; Wright, Van Voorhis, Salisbury, The Messina et al. (2010) study illustrates taught, etc.). Comparing different “therapeutic”
& Bauman, 2012). As a consequence of the the difficulty in distinguishing elements of environments on client engagement, learning,
differences, treatment programs have been responsivity, risk, and need in our research and change in offender needs should prove
developed to address the unique needs of efforts. To further illustrate on a broader level, fruitful to expanding our understanding of the
women (e.g., victimization, mental health, we examined the large offender treatment responsivity principle. In terms of effectiveness
social and economic marginalization). It is then database of Andrews and Bonta (2010a). to reduce re-offending, a distal outcome of
argued that the gender-informed program is Selecting only those studies that adhere to adherence to the responsivity principle, any
following the responsivity principle. However, the general responsivity principle (i.e., use impact on recidivism may be attributed to client
evaluations of such programs have focused cognitive-behavioral techniques; k=77), 93.5 engagement and greater client learning that then
on recidivism reductions, an outcome more percent of those studies also adhered to the impacts targeted criminogenic needs.
relevant to the need principle than to the need principle. In other words, programs that There is much to be learned about
responsivity principle. Let us take as an employ cognitive-behavioral interventions responsivity, even within the well-established
example the difficulties in assessing the role with offenders also tend to follow the need general responsivity principle of utilizing
of the need and responsivity principles with principle. Dissecting the independent influence cognitive-behavioral approaches. Although
the randomized study conducted by Messina, of the RNR principles and in particular the cognitive-behavioral approaches and models
Grell, Cartier, and Torres (2010). responsivity principle is a challenge. share some fundamental similarities, there is
Messina and her colleagues (2010) substantial variability among the approaches,
randomly assigned 115 women offenders to An Agenda for Research on ranging from conceptual schemes and
either a gender-responsive treatment program Responsivity constructs to the fundamental skills that are
(GRT) or a standard Therapeutic Community Moving forward, there is much for researchers emphasized. Different treatment models may
treatment program (TC). The GRT and TC and clinicians to do to broaden and expand also use different explanatory mechanisms
programs differed significantly, particularly our knowledge of the responsivity principle. and terminology. For example, Marlatt’s
on the needs targeted. Both programs targeted Building knowledge about the means by which Relapse Prevention Framework (1985) and its
substance abuse (a criminogenic need) but GRT client engagement is enhanced, how learning can variations uses the concepts of “triggers,” “high
targeted additional women-specific needs, such be optimized, and how these two factors impact risk situations.” and “outcome expectancies,”
as the effects of trauma and victimization (e.g., on needs can provide valuable information to Beck (1979) talks of “cognitive distortions”
dysfunctional family relationships and sexual those responsible for designing, delivering, and and “automatic thoughts,” and Yochelson8 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 78 Number 2
and Samenow (1977) use the language of surrounding the risk and need principles is well Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010b).
“thinking errors.” Considering responsivity grounded, particularly around the assessment Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and
as the learning environment and its impact of risk and need. Although research continues practice. Psychology, Public Policy and Law,
on engagement and learning gives rise to to explore additional potential risk/need factors, 16, 39-55.
the possibility that the use of different key particularly for specific groups such as women, Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R .D. (1990).
Classification for effective rehabilitation:
concepts, terms, and skills may enhance or the importance of adhering to the principles
Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice
diminish engagement and learning. when delivering human services has a firm and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
Our recent work with the Strategic Training empirical foundation. However, the research Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, S.
Initiative in Community Supervision (STICS; support surrounding specific responsivity pales J. (2004). The Level of Service/Case
Bonta et al., 2011) illustrates small but perhaps in comparison. To date, cognitive-behavioral Management Inventory (LS/CMI). Toronto,
significant changes to the constructs and approaches (general responsivity) has been Ontario: Multi-Health Systems.
language of cognitive-behavioral approaches shown to be a more effective theoretical Andrews, D. A., & Dowden, C. (2006).
that could be empirically tested. Many if not framework than psychodynamic or other models Risk principle of case classification in
all cognitive-behavioral interventions have of “therapy” (Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005). A correctional treatment. International Journal
labels to assist clients identifying problematic problem with responsivity research has been of Offender Therapy and Comparative
versus non-problematic thinking. They may its focus on client attributes that are believed to Criminology, 50, 88-100.
Andrews, D. A., Guzzo, L., Raynor, P., Rowe, R.
be referred to as “thinking errors,” “cognitive impact rehabilitation efforts rather than on the
C., Rettinger, J. L., Brews, A., & Wormith,
distortions,” or “neutralizations” or many other characteristics and actions of therapists. S. J. (2012). Are the major risk/need
terms, each with similar but not identical By placing the focus on reoffending, a factors predictive of both female and male
definitions and/or underlying meaning for distal outcome of responsivity, we have failed reoffending? A test with the eight domains
behavior. In STICS, we made efforts to change to more closely examine what “responsivity” of the Level of Service/Case Management
these labels derived from formal cognitive fundamentally means and what adherence to Inventory. International Journal of Offender
behavioral language to labels that give rise to the responsivity principle is trying to achieve. Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56,
visual or auditory images (Rugge & Bonta, Although client attributes provide context, 113-133.
2014). We reasoned that these changes would responsivity is first and foremost about our Andrews, D. A., & Kiessling, J. J. (1980).
enhance client engagement, client learning, efforts to accommodate those attributes, what Program structure and effective correctional
and client application of these terms and it is that we do. Responsivity is creating practices: A summary of the CaVIC
research. In R.R. Ross & P. Gendreau (Eds.),
concepts to their own personal thinking and an optimal learning environment for the
Effective correctional treatment (pp. 439-
behavior. Even the often-used sequential client; an environment that helps the client 463). Toronto, ON: Butterworth.
organization of antecedent stimuli—internal to engage and learn through observation, Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta,
events—behavior—consequence found in most dialogue, interaction, and experience. The J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does
cognitive-behavioral models varies in the immediate and direct outcomes of successful correctional treatment work? A clinically
terms used and in the underlying construct’s responsivity efforts are enhanced client relevant and psychologically informed meta
function. For example, antecedent stimuli engagement in the service and its activities analysis. Criminology, 28, 369 404.
may be referred to as an “external situation,” and enhanced client learning of “teachings” Beck, A. T. (1979). Cognitive therapy and
“trigger,” “high-risk situation,” or “activating of the service. We hope that we have offered the emotional disorders. New York, NY:
event.” The function of the antecedent stimulus a way forward for clinicians and researchers Penguin.
in behavior can differ as well. It may function alike by reconsidering what is meant by the Blanchette, K., & Brown, S. (2006). The
assessment and treatment of women
as a discriminative stimulus controlling responsivity principle.
offenders. Chichester, England: Wiley.
certain emotions, thoughts, and/or behavior, a Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-needs assessment and
conditioned stimulus resulting in a conditioned References
treatment. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing
emotional, cognitive, and/or behavioral Andrews, D. A. (1979). The dimensions of correctional options that work: Defining the
response, or a signal to the individual providing correctional counselling and supervision demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 18-
information about potential reinforcement/ processes in probation and parole. Toronto, 32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
punishment contingencies. In STICS, we shy ON: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Bonta, J., Blais, J., & Wilson, H. (2014). A
Services. theoretically informed meta-analysis of the
away from such terms, instead teaching clients
Andrews, D. A. (1982). The Level of Supervision risk for general and violent recidivism for
the term “Outside Cues” and employing it as an
Inventory (LSI): The first follow-up. Toronto, mentally disordered offenders. Aggression
information or contextual signal only, having ON: Ontario Ministry of Correctional
little explanatory power for an individual’s and Violent Behavior, 19, 278-287.
Services. Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Scott, T.-L.,
thoughts, feelings, or behavior. Such simple Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1994). The Yessine, A. K., Gutierrez, L., & Li., J. (2011).
but often overlooked examples of responsivity psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati, An experimental demonstration of training
efforts to enhance the learning environment OH: Anderson. probation officers in evidence-based
can be empirically tested and evaluated on Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level community supervision. Criminal Justice
client engagement and learning. of Service Inventory—Revised. Toronto, and Behavior, 38, 1127-1148.
Ontario: Multi-Health Systems. Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L. L. (1985). Utilization
Summary Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010a). The of an interview based classification
psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). instrument: A study of correctional halfway
The RNR model is one of the most widely
Newark, NJ: LexisNexis/Matthew Bender. houses. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12,
researched and validated models of offender
rehabilitation. The empirical support 333-352.September 2014 RECONSIDERING THE RESPONSIVITY PRINCIPLE: A WAY TO MOVE FORWARD 9
Bonta, J., Rugge, T., Scott, T., Bourgon, G., & Guttierez, L., Wilson, H., Rugge, T., & Bonta, Lundahl, B. W., Kunz, C., Brownell, C.,
Yessine, A. (2008). Exploring the black J. (2013). The prediction of recidivism Tollefson, D., & Burke, B. L. (2010). A
box of community supervision. Journal of with Aboriginal offenders: A theoretically meta-analysis of motivational interviewing:
Offender Rehabilitation, 47, 248-270. informed meta-analysis. Canadian Journal Twenty-five years of empirical studies.
Bonta, J., & Wormith, S. J. (in press). Adult of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 55, Research on Social Work Practice, 20, 137-160.
offender assessment and classification in 55-99. Mailloux, D. L., Abracen, J., Serin, R.,
custodial settings. In J. Wooldredge & P. Hettema, J., Steele, J., & Miller, W. R. (2005). Cousineau, C., Malcolm, B., & Looman,
Smith (Eds.), Oxford handbook on prisons Motivational interviewing. Annual Review J. (2003). Dosage of treatment to sexual
and imprisonment. Oxford, UK: Oxford of Clinical Psychology, 1, 91-111. offenders: Are we overprescribing?
University Press. Horvath, A. O., & Symonds, B. D. (1991). Relation International Journal of Offender Therapy
Bourgon, G., & Armstrong, B. (2005). between working alliance and outcome in and Comparative Criminology, 47, 171-184.
Transferring the principles of effective psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marlatt, G. A. (1985). Relapse prevention:
treatment into a “real world” prison setting. Counseling Psychology, 38, 139-149. Theoretical rationale and overview of the
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 3-25. Hubbard, D. J. (2007). Getting the most out model. Relapse Prevention, 3-70.
Clavert, S. J., Beutler, L. E., & Crago, M. (1988). of correctional treatment: Testing the Marshall, W. L., & Serran, G. S. (2000).
Psychotherapy outcome as a function of responsivity principle on male and female Improving the effectiveness of sexual
therapist-patient matching on selected offenders. Federal Probation, 71, 2-8. offender treatment. Trauma, Violence &
variables. Journal of Social and Clinical Kennedy, S., & Serin, R. (1999). Examining Abuse, 1, 203-222.
Psychology, 6, 104-117. offender readiness to change and the impact Marshall, W. L., Ward, T., Mann, R. E., Moulden,
Campbell, M.A., French, S., & Gendreau, P. on treatment outcome. In P. M. Harris (Ed.), H., Fernandez, Y. M., Serran, G. S., &
(2009). The prediction of violence in adult Research to results: Effective community Marshall, L. E. (2005). Working positively
offenders: A meta-analytic comparison of corrections (pp. 215-230). Lanham, MD: with sexual offenders: Maximizing the
instruments and methods of assessment. American Correctional Association. effectiveness of treatment. Journal of
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 567-590. Koehler, J. A., Lösel, F., Akoensi, T. D., & Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1096-1114.
Cullen, F. T. (2012). Taking rehabilitation Humphreys, D. K. (2013). A systematic Martinson, R. (1974). What works?—Questions
seriously. Punishment & Society, 14, 94-114. review and meta-analysis on the effects and answers about prison reform. The
Dowden, C. (1998). A meta-analytic of young offender treatment programs Public Interest, 35, 22-54.
examination of the risk, need and in Europe. Journal of Experimental McMurran, M. (2009). Motivational
responsivity principles and their importance Criminology, 9, 19-43. interviewing with offenders: A systematic
within the rehabilitation debate. Master’s Landenberger, N. A., & Lipsey, M. W. (2005). review. Legal and Criminological Psychology,
thesis, Department of Psychology, Carleton The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral 14, 83-100.
University, Ottawa, Ontario. programs for offenders: A meta-analysis of Messina, N., Grella, C. E., Cartier, J., & Torres,
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2004). The factors associated with effective treatment. S. (2010). A randomized experimental
importance of staff practice in delivering Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, study of gender-responsive substance abuse
effective correctional treatment: A meta- 451-476. treatment for women in prison. Journal of
analytic review of core correctional practice. Lovins, L. B., Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., Substance Abuse Treatment, 38, 97-107.
International Journal of Offender Therapy & Smith, P. (2007). Application of the risk Miller, W. R. (1985). Motivation for treatment: A
and Comparative Criminology, 48, 203-214. principle to female offenders. Journal of review with special emphasis on alcoholism.
Drake, E. K., Aos, S., & Miller, M. G. (2009). Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23, 383-398. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 84-107.
Evidence-based public policy options to Lovins, L. B., Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2009). Ten things
reduce crime and criminal justice costs: J. (2009). Applying the risk principle to sex that motivational interviewing is not.
Implications in Washington state. Victims offenders: Can treatment make some sex Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy,
and Offenders, 4, 170-196. offenders worse? The Prison Journal, 89, 37, 129-140.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Law, M. (1997). 344-357. Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2014). The
Predicting prison misconducts. Criminal Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A., Robinson, C. effectiveness and ineffectiveness of complex
Justice and Behavior, 24, 414-431. R., & Alexander, M. (2014). Diminishing behavioral interventions: Impact of
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (2002). or durable treatment effects of STARR? A treatment fidelity. Contemporary Clinical
Is the PCL-R really the “unparalleled” research note on 24-month re-arrest rates. Trials, 37, 234-241.
measure of offender risk? Criminal Justice Journal of Crime and Justice, 37, 275-283. Miller, W. R., & Rose, G. S. (2009). Toward
and Behavior, 29, 397-426. Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2005). a theory of motivational interviewing.
Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. R. (1979). Effective Increasing the effectiveness of correctional American Psychologist, 64, 527-537.
correctional treatment: Bibliotherapy for programming through the risk principle: Ogloff, J. R. P., & Davis, N. R. (2004). Advances
cynics. Crime and Justice, 25, 463-489. Identifying offenders for residential in offender assessment and rehabilitation:
Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. R. (1981). Correctional placement. Criminology and Public Policy, Contributions of the Risk-Needs-
potency on trial: Treatment and deterrence 4, 501-528. Responsivity approach. Psychology, Crime &
on trial. In R. Roesch & R. R. Corrado Lundahl, B., & Burke, B. L. (2009). The Law, 10, 229-242.
(Eds.), Evaluation and criminal justice policy effectiveness and applicability of Olver, M. E., Stockdale, K. C., & Wormith, S.
(pp. 463-489). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. motivational interviewing: A practice- J. (2014). Thirty years of research on the
Grant, J. D. (1965). Delinquency treatment in friendly review of four meta-analyses. Level of Service scales: A meta-analytic
an institutional setting. In H. C. Quay (Ed.), Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 1232-1245. examination of predictive accuracy
Juvenile delinquency: Research and theory and sources of variability. Psychological
(pp. 29-57). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Assessment, 26, 156-176.You can also read
