OFFENDER REHABILITATION:
FROM RESEARCH TO PRACTICE
1997-01
By James Bonta, Ph.D.
The views expressed are those of the author
and are not necessarily those of the Ministry of the Solicitor
General of
Canada.
Public Works and Government Services Canada
Cat. No. JS4-1/1997-1
ISBN: 0-662-62937-X
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Offender Rehabilitation: From Research to Practice
Research on Effective Offender Rehabilitation
The Key Characteristics of Effective Intervention
Evaluating the Treatment Principles
Criminal Sanctions and Offender Rehabilitation
Implementing the Results of Research
References
Executive Summary
More than twenty years ago there was a
general disillusionment about the effectiveness of offender
treatment programs. Various social and political events in the
1970's cast doubt in the public's mind about the ability of
governments to control crime and promote justice. As a consequence,
there was a shift toward the increased use of sanctions as the means
for crime control. However, consideration of the evidence indicates
that offender treatment programs can "work" and that sanctions have
a relatively small impact on the recidivism of
offenders.
In recent years there have been considerable advances in our knowledge
about the characteristics of effective treatment programs. Two important
principles of effective treatment are the Risk Principle and the Need
Principle. The Risk Principle states that the level of treatment should
match the risk level of the offender. That is, higher risk offenders
require intensive levels of treatment services while low risk offenders
require minimal levels of treatment. The Need Principle identifies two
type of offender needs: 1) criminogenic and 2) noncriminogenic.
Criminogenic needs are offender risk factors that when changed are
associated with changes in recidivism. Effective offender treatment
programs are those that target criminogenic needs.
The research on offender rehabilitation is translatable into practice.
The first step in effective programming is to use well validated measures
of offender risk and criminogenic needs. There are today, a number of
objective risk-needs scales that can be used for this purpose. These
instruments provide a reliable means for differentiating high risk
offenders from low risk offenders (Risk Principle) and assessing dynamic
risk factors (Need Principle). Correctional jurisdictions are encouraged
to develop and use these instruments.
When treatment programs are compared with criminal justice sanctions, the
findings show treatment more likely to reduce recidivism. Even detailed
analyses of types of sanctions (e.g., length of sentence, boot camps,
etc.) show no one particular sanction as significantly effective in
reducing recidivism. The evidence is persuasive. If we are to enhance
community safety, offender rehabilitation programs that follow the
principles of effective treatment are most likely to meet with success.
Offender Rehabilitation: From Research to
Practice
This paper attempts to translate into
practice what we know from the research on effective interventions
with offenders. During the past twenty years, significant progress
has been made in our understanding of the factors which influence
criminal behaviour. We now know that treatment can be successful in
reducing criminal behaviour and we have better knowledge as to what
are the effective treatment
ingredients.
Although our intellectual understanding of criminal behaviour has
progressed significantly from only a couple of decades ago, it is often
difficult to implement the research findings in a way that is easily
understood and readily accepted by the field. Too often social science
progress is seen as an abstract enterprise that has little relevance to
"real life" and that recommended solutions are too costly to implement. I
will try to show that much of what researchers have learned can be put
into daily practice and in a cost-effective manner.
There are two sections to this paper. First, a brief overview of the
research on the effectiveness of offender rehabilitation is given and
contrasted to the research on the effectiveness of criminal justice
sanctions. Next, I take the research results and develop some general
ways of implementing the findings into practice.
Research on Effective Offender
Rehabilitation
One of the prevailing myths in corrections is that offender
rehabilitation does not "work" and that it has never been effective in
reducing recidivism. This myth was greatly enhanced by Lipton, Martinson
and Wilks' (1975) review of the offender rehabilitation literature and
their conclusion that treatment is ineffective. Subsequently, many
critics of offender treatment programs made selective references from
previous reviews of the rehabilitation literature (e.g., Bailey, 1966;
Kirby, 1954) charging that providing treatment to offenders never did
demonstrate reductions in recidivism.
A close examination of the literature reviews that supposedly did not
support the efficacy of offender treatment indicates that some treatments
do work (Andrews & Bonta, 1994). Beginning with the first review
article (Kirby, 1954) and continuing to Logan's (1972) review, the
majority of studies showed reductions in offender recidivism (see Table
1). However, the 1970s and the decades following were not a fashionable
time for ideas of rehabilitation. Nevertheless, research on offender
treatment programs continued to show that some treatments reduced
recidivism and that there was a growing understanding of the conditions
necessary for effective interventions.
The Key Characteristics of Effective
Intervention
In 1990, Andrews, Bonta and Hoge described the common characteristics of
offender programs that reduced recidivism. They listed four important
principles.
The first principle was called the Risk Principle. An effective treatment
program must be able to differentiate offenders in their risk to
re-offend and then match their risk to level of service. Higher risk
offenders require more intensive services while the lower risk offenders
require very little or no services. There is evidence to suggest that
intensive levels of services with low risk offenders either has no effect
on recidivism or, may even increase recidivism. Thus, reliable
risk assessment is important not only for monitoring and release
decisions but also for the delivery of effective treatment.
Simply matching levels of service to offender risk level is insufficient
for effective programming. The service must address the needs of
offenders. The second principle, the Need Principle, makes the point that
there are two types of offender needs: criminogenic and noncriminogenic.
Criminogenic needs are the offender needs that when changed, are
associated with changes in recidivism. For example, substance abuse and
employment problems are criminogenic needs. They may serve as treatment
goals which, if successfully addressed, may reduce recidivism. Anxiety
and self-esteem are examples of noncriminogenic needs. Decreasing anxiety
or increasing self-esteem is unlikely to impact future criminal
behaviour.
The third principle is the Responsivity Principle. There are certain
personality and cognitive-behavioural characteristics of the offender
that influence how responsive he/she is to types of treatment and how
that treatment is delivered. In general, cognitive-behavioural treatments
are more effective than other forms of treatment (e.g., psychodynamic,
client-centred). But, a cognitive-behavioural treatment program, in and
of itself, may not reduce offender recidivism. If the program fails to
target criminogenic needs (Need Principle) and with the appropriate
intensity (Risk Principle), there may be little effect.
Professional Discretion is the fourth principle. Some offenders may
present unique characteristics and situations that are not adequately
considered by the other three principles. For example, some sex offenders
score low risk on many objective risk instruments but other factors known
to the professional may suggest otherwise. As an example, a child
molester who is in a position of caring for children may present a
special risk not considered by a general offender assessment instrument.
Recently, Andrews has added a fifth principle, Program Integrity.
Conducting the treatment in a structured manner, according to the
principles outlined and with enthusiastic and dedicated staff are the
features of this principle.
Evaluating the Treatment Principles
The principles of effective treatment were applied in a meta-analytic
literature review. In a meta-analysis, the results of studies are
transformed into a common metric which allows the findings to be compared
in a quantitative manner. Andrews, Zinger, et al. (1990) argued that not
all treatment programs are equivalent. In fact, the words "treatment" and
"rehabilitation" are used very loosely in the field. For example, a boot
camp may be called a "treatment" just as a cognitive-behavioural anger
management program is called treatment. Therefore, it was important
to separate criminal justice sanctions from programs that
deliver a direct service to the offender.
Furthermore, not all direct service treatment programs are on an equal
footing. Andrews, Zinger et al. (1990) argued that treatment programs
could be categorised into two sets: a) appropriate, and b) inappropriate.
Appropriate programs are those that adhere to the principles of effective
treatment. Inappropriate programs violate one or more principles. For
example, a treatment program that targeted the self-esteem of low risk
offenders with considerable intensity using psychodynamic therapy would
violate the first three principles.
Andrews, Zinger, et al. (1990) reviewed 154 treatments that included a
comparison group and reported post-program recidivism. Thirty were
criminal sanctions (e.g., probation vs prison), 54 were appropriate
treatments, 38 inappropriate and the remainder could not be categorised.
Analysis of the data showed that only appropriate treatments, those
following the principles previously outlined, were associated with
reduced recidivism. On average, recidivism decreased by 50%. Criminal
sanctions and inappropriate treatments actually showed small
increases in recidivism.
The Andrews, Zinger, et al. (1990) finding that treatment can and does
reduce recidivism is not an isolated finding. Lösel (1995) summarised 13
meta-analytic reviews and concluded "all meta-analyses confirm a positive
overall effect" (p. 102). Ignoring the offender rehabilitation literature
is no longer empirically justifiable.
Criminal Sanctions and Offender
Rehabilitation
Almost all countries have formalised rules for applying sanctions to
those who violate the rules. These sanctions are intended to reflect
society's abhorrence of crime and to address notions of justice by
fitting the punishment to the crime. In many Western nations, there is
also the hope that sanctions will function as deterrents and reduce
future crime by the offender.
The meta-analysis of offender "treatments" by Andrews, Zinger, et al.
(1990) found that criminal justice sanctions are not very effective
deterrents. Instead, sanctions were associated with more crime! Some may
argue that Andrews and his colleagues repeated the same mistake made by
Martinson and others who lumped all treatments into one category. In this
case however, all sanctions were treated the same. Perhaps, if criminal
sanctions were differentiated then we would find some sanctions to "work"
better than others in reducing recidivism.
There have been two reviews of the literature on criminal justice
sanctions and its impact on recidivism. Cullen, Wright and Applegate
(1996) conducted a narrative literature review of community sanctions
including intensive supervision programs, electronic monitoring and boot
camps. They concluded:
Intermediate punishments are unlikely to deter
criminal behavior more effectively than regular
probation or prison placements (p. 114)
Gendreau and Goggin (1996) completed a meta-analysis of the literature
and were led to similar conclusions. Their findings are summarised in
Table 2. None of the sanctions investigated were associated with reduced
recidivism of the magnitude found in appropriate treatment studies. A few
sanctions were even associated with increased recidivism (fines,
restitution). Considering the reviews by Cullen et al. (1996) and
Gendreau and Goggin (1996) we have very little reason to believe that any
type of criminal sanction would have a significant deterrent effect.
Rather, there is a growing recognition that sanctions may reduce
recidivism, but only when a treatment component is added (Andrews &
Bonta, 1994; Gendreau et al., 1994; MacKenzie et al., 1995).
Implementing the Results of Research
Summarising the key findings from the research on offender
rehabilitation, the following can be said:
1. Direct treatment services are more likely to reduce recidivism than
criminal sanctions.
2. Effective treatment programs follow the Principles of Risk and Need.
3. Effective treatment programs are cognitive-behavioural in nature.
Implementing these ideas require a number of steps and the first, and
often neglected step, is to make an organizational commitment to the
value of offender rehabilitation. Many agencies and correctional managers
verbalize their desire to promote rehabilitation but often their actions
fail to support their words. Staff are told to "help" their clients, but
are not given the time or resources to work with their clients. Clinical
professionals are hired, but under-utilised. Treatment programs exist on
paper but not in practise. At the other extreme, some jurisdictions in
the United States clearly do not hold rehabilitation as a valued
activity. Here, probation has become almost like a quasi-police force
where staff carry weapons and probationers are simply monitored to make
sure that they are complying with court-ordered conditions.
We cannot help but underscore the importance
of this first step. Before a probation agency can deliver high
quality treatment services, it is essential that the organization
accepts the value of rehabilitation, communicates this value to
staff, and provides the support for delivering the services. This is
not an insurmountable step. An example of making the commitment and
communicating to staff the importance of offender rehabilitation can
be seen in the Mission Statement of the Correctional Service of
Canada. One of the five Core Values described in the Mission
statement recognizes the offender's potential to live as a
law-abiding citizen and to achieve this goal requires programs which
address the offender's
needs.
Research shows that effective rehabilitation attends to the principles of
Risk and Need. The Risk Principle states that the level of service must
match the risk level of the offender. In order to do this properly, the
correctional agency must be able to reliably differentiate offender risk
levels. It must be able to identify the higher risk offenders who require
more intensive services. Although this sounds easy, few jurisdictions
conduct state-of-the-art offender risk assessments.
Bonta (1996) described three approaches used in offender risk assessment.
The first, which he called first generation risk assessment, is
essentially subjective in nature. The professional, based upon his/her
training, makes a judgement as to the offender's risk to re-offend. The
criteria for judgement and the process by which it is made, is not
publicly observable. Subjective assessments often vary from staff to
staff and are limited only by broadly worded policy and procedural
statements. Professional judgement almost always performs poorly in
prediction studies. Unfortunately, this approach to offender risk
assessment is widely used.
Second generation risk assessment involves objective criteria that have
been empirically linked to recidivism. They are generally referred to as
actuarial risk scales. The typical risk scale may have 5 to 10, mostly
criminal history items. The second generation risk assessments perform
better than subjective approaches. At the very minimum, any correctional
agency that has reducing recidivism as one of its goals, must use a
second generation risk scale. The scale would provide a reliable means of
differentiating the higher risk offender who requires treatment from the
lower risk offender who needs only minimal levels of service.
The problem with second generation risk assessments is that because they
are mostly comprised of static, criminal history items, they provide
little information on criminogenic needs. The Need Principle calls
attention to criminogenic needs which should be targeted by treatment
services. For a correctional organization to deliver effective services,
it must have a way of assessing criminogenic needs. The solution can be
found in the use of third generation assessments.
Third generation assessment instruments provide objective, empirically
validated assessments of criminogenic needs. To our knowledge, there are
only three instruments in operation today which approximate the
assessment of criminogenic needs. They are the Wisconsin classification
system (Baird, Heinz & Bemus, 1979), the Community Risk-Needs scale
of the Correctional Service of Canada (Motiuk & Porporino, 1989), and
the Level of Service Inventory - Revised (Andrews & Bonta, 1995).
These scale not only include criminal history items but also measure such
offender needs as substance abuse, employment and accommodations.
The third important finding from the research is that
cognitive-behavioural interventions enhance the effectiveness of
treatment programs. Cognitive-behavioural treatment programs have the
following characteristics:
-
The goal is to train behavioural skills.
-
The programs are clearly structured.
-
The therapist is interpersonally warm,
socially skilled but firm and consistent.
-
The therapist models the appropriate
behaviour.
-
The therapist provides feedback. Prosocial behaviour is reinforced and
antisocial behaviour is discouraged.
The effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural interventions can partly be
explained by the Responsivity principle (Bonta, 1995). Service providers
must attend to the personality and cognitive characteristics of their
clients in order to maximize the benefits of treatment. Since many
offenders tend to be concrete oriented in their thinking, not very
verbal, and inadept with certain prosocial skills (e.g., work,
interpersonal), traditional counselling approaches (e.g., client-centred
and psychodynamic therapies) have been ineffective with offenders. These
traditional therapies require clients to be verbally skilled and already
have prosocial behaviours in their repertoire.
In summary, in order to reduce offender recidivism, we make the following
recommendations:
1) commit to the value of offender rehabilitation and give careful
attention to the research;
2) use an objective and empirically validated risk-needs instrument to
match risk to the level of service;
3) deliver cognitive-behavioural interventions that target criminogenic
needs
These recommendations are feasible but, they are also not easy to
realize. Despite the difficulties, efforts to design and implement
programs based on the research will likely produce direct benefits to the
client and the community in the form of reduced recidivism.
References
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1994). The psychology of criminal
conduct. Cincinnati: Anderson.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level of Service
Inventory-Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D.
(1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering
psychology.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17
, 19-52.
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P.,
& Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work?
A clinically-relevant and psychologically informed meta- analysis.
Criminology, 28, 369-404.
Bailey, W. C. (1966). Correctional Outcome: An evaluation of 100 reports.
Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science,
57, 153-160.
Baird, S. C., Heinz, R. C., & Bemus, B. J. (1979). Project
Report
#14: A two year follow-up. Madison, WI:
Department of Health and Social Service, Case Classification/Staff
Deployment Project, Bureau of Community Corrections.
Bonta, J. (1995). The Responsivity Principle and offender rehabilitation.
Forum on Corrections Research, 7(3), 34-37.
Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-needs assessment and
treatment. In A. T.
Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work
(pp. 18-32). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Cullen, F. T., Wright, J. P., Applegate, B.
K. (1996). Control in
the community: The limits of reform? In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing
correctional options that work
(pp. 69-116). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Gendreau, P., Cullen, F. T., & Bonta, J. (1994). Intensive
rehabilitation services: The next generation in community
corrections. Federal Probation, 58, 72-78.
Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (1996). Principles of effective
programming with offenders. Forum on Corrections Research,
8(3), 38-40.
Kirby, B. C. (1954). Measuring the effects of
treatment on
criminals and delinquents. Sociology and Social Research,
38
, 368-374.
Lipton, D., Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. (1975). The
effectiveness
of correctional treatment: A survey of treatment evaluation
studies. New York:
Praeger.
Logan, C. H. (1972). Evaluation research in crime and delinquency: A
reappraisal. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police
Science, 63, 378-387.
Lösel, F. (1995). The efficacy of correctional treatment: A review and
synthesis of meta-evaluations. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works:
Reducing reoffending: Guidelines from research and practice.
Chichester, England: Wiley.
MacKenzie, D. L., Brame, R., McDowall, D.,
& Souryal, C. (1995).
Boot camp prisons and recidivism in eight states. Criminology,
33,
327-357.
Motiuk, L. L., & Porporino, F. J. (1989). Field test of the
Community Risk/Needs Management scale: A study of offenders
on caseload. R-06.
Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.
|