Evolution of Community Supervision of Sex Offenders

How British Columbia Corrections got to applying the principles of Risk, Needs and Responsivity in working with sex offenders

Chris ThomsonBritu Kolumbijas Likumpārkāpēju labošanas dienests/

Britu Kolumbijas Tieslietu institūts(Kanāda)

Rīga, 2011.g. martā

Frequently asked questions about sex offenders

Using Risk Needs and Responsivity

The Risk Needs Responsivity (RNR) model of assessmentand supervision is designed from evidenced basedresearch of offenders and has been adopted in manyareas across North America.

British Columbia Corrections was the first province in Canada to incorporate these principles in specific policy. This was supported with probation officer training designed to enhance the understanding and applied effectiveness of this model.

RNR is used within the supervision of sexual offenders to manage risk and help reduce recidivism.

Origins of Sex Offender Supervisionin British Columbia

1987: 1st experimental community office set up to specifically supervise sexual offenders released on probation supervision and provincial parole (Supervision as part of early release from prison).

Two probation officers, one psychologist supervising 120 offenders.

Theoretical background behind the supervision:Relapse Prevention Model influenced by the work of;(Dr. Marlett, Dr. R. Laws, Dr. Pithers, Robert Freeman-Longo)

Relapse Prevention Model

Early Assessment of OffendersOffenders were interviewed at length on family background, employmenteducation, sexual history (using the SONE sexual history background) and attitude towards the offence.

Psychologist interviewed the offenders using MMPI ( Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory) The test is used by trained professionals to assist in identifying personality structure and psychopathology.

A “Plan to Live By” was constructed by the offender and the probation officer thatIncorporated the probation conditions. External supervision by collateral contacts were also utilized. These contacts were screened by the probation officer to assess for understanding of the probationers risk to re-offend.

3rd Generation Risk AssessmentAn assessment tool called the Sex Offender Risk Assessment (SORA) was developed in British Columbia by Dr. Randy Atkinson, Dr. Randall Kropp and Dr. Richard Laws. It was used by British Columbia probation officers in the early 90’s.

The SORA divides into two sections. The first section is comprised of 10 static factors and the second section is comprised of 17 dynamic risk factors. This second section of dynamic risk factors, although not actuarial, was crucial for probation officers to develop case management strategies. This concept was ahead of the literature available at the time, which was to simply categorize offenders on actuarial instruments.

Sex Offender Risk Assessment SORAStatic 99R and Stable 2007

SORA Explanations

SORA Risk Factor titles

Static 99R

Stable 2007 Scoring

Philosophy ChangeIn the early 90’s, the BC Corrections Branch adopted the use of evidence based research and incorporated the principles of Risk, Need and Responsivity.(Dr. Don Andrews, Dr. James Bonta and Dr. Paul Gendreau.) All of our case management supervision plans were directed by our risk/needs assessments that were adopted from evidence based research.

Our Provincial Director of Community Corrections, Mr. Robert Watts provided the direction and support for a cultural shift from the way we had been supervising offenders.

Dr. Andrews passed away Oct. 22. 2010. His final paper was:The impact of nonprogrammatic factors on criminal-justice interventions.

Legal and Criminological Psychology (2011), 16, 1–23 C 2010 The British Psychological Society

Principles of Evidenced Based Corrections Risk Need Responsivity

Risk Match the level of service to the offender’s risk to re-offend. Need Assess criminogenic needs and target them in treatment. Responsivity Maximize the offender’s ability to learn from a rehabilitative intervention by providing cognitive behavioural treatment and tailoring the intervention to the learning style, motivation, abilities and strengths of the offender. General Use cognitive social learning methods to influence behaviour. Specific Use cognitive behavioural interventions that take into account strengths, learning style, personality, motivation, and bio-social (e.g., gender, race) characteristics of the individual.

What works in Corrections Risk Principle

Direct services to high risk offenders as number of risk/needs factors increase, the effort to modify

them must increase Need Principle

not all needs causally related to criminal conduct some needs are criminogenic, target those ones

Responsivity Principle cognitive-behavioural interventions work best behaviour depends on cognitions and consequences tailor intervention to offender learning style, motivation, abilities

and strengths

Changing Course1994-to present

Community supervision was now premised on “what works” and all of our interactions with offenders became based on the principles of RNR (Risk Need Responsivity)

Risk: those who pose the highest risk get the most service.

Need: discovery of what factors are related to criminal conduct and address those needs through appropriate programs targeting behavioral change and management of risk.

Responsivity: assisting in the learning of new pro-social skills by the offender

Risk Needs Assessment Latvian

English

Sex Offender SupervisionNew Directions

While BC Corrections was adopting the RNR principles into the case management of the general and domestic violence offenders, the sex offenderassessments that were becoming available were also changing. Probation officers who were supervising sex offenders had already been utilizing the RNR principles prior to it’s formal introduction into mainstream supervision.

The work of Dr. Karl Hanson and Dr. Andrew Harris was providing new and more accurate assessments specifically, the Static 99 and the Stable/Acute 2000.

BC Corrections was part of the National study of Drs. Hanson and Harris and implemented the use of these risk instruments as their predictive validity was superior to the Sex Offender Risk Assessment (SORA).

By the early 2000’s, community probation staff who were supervising sex offenders were being trained on how to score the Static 99 and the Stable 2000.

Relapse Prevention to Behavioural Progression to Self Management Plan

Relapse Prevention (RP) and Self Management (SM) strategies are used to reduce sex offender recidivism due to the operating premise of of cognitive behavioral interventions.

The interaction of a variety of factors, external and internal to theoffender, influence whether or not he will re-offend.

Differences between Relapse Prevention and Self Management

RP was found not to have relevance to those offenders who haveneutral or positive experiences or goals prior to actively planning an offence. It mostly focused on risk avoidance, andnot on pro-social skill building

SM interventions try to replace maladaptive or deviant responses with adaptive pro social beliefs and behavior by targeting thespecific areas where the offender is deficient.

SM also emphasized the offender take responsibility for their actionsand recognizes the behavioral progression that preceded and followedthe sexual offences. It also identifies situations which place them at risk and assists in developing strategies to prevent recidivism.

Risk Needs and Responsivity in Sex Offender Supervision

The shift in adopting to the behavioural progression/self management model of interventions from the earlier use of relapse prevention with sex offenders was assisted by the fact that BC Corrections had already been training its’ probation officers in pro-social modeling, motivational interviewing and role clarification with offenders.

This prior training was valuable for probation officers who were working with sex offenders to take on a more collaborative approach in supervision of the offenders as they were already working within a risk, needs, responsivity model.

Training probation staff to supervise sexual offenders in 2011:

Mandatory courses and subjects Risk Assessment and Case ManagementEffective and Purposeful InterventionsIntroduction to sexual deviancyCognitive DistortionsHome Visit PolicyBehavioural ProgressionRisk PrinciplesThe effects of sex offender supervision on the Probation OfficerStatic 99RStable/Acute 2007Sex Offender Maintenance (Group)

Challenges:

Overcoming personal bias and fear in using the risk assessments eg: Probation officer “feels” the person is more of a risk than assessment instruments have him categorized.

Maintenance of the effective use of relationship skills, reinforcement and disapproval, prosocial modeling and problem solving.

Male to female staff ratio of probation staff.

Avoiding burnout, cynicism and cognitive stress associated to working with this population.

Accomplishments:

•Evidence based risk assessments and case planning written in policy

•The ability to demonstrate pro social modeling by sex offender supervisors is•viewed as a core strength

•Training of probation officers directly related to using the model of risk, needs •and responsivity

•Supervision intervention models that reflect offender risk

•A common language of offender management amongst all staff

•More collaboration between treatment providers and probation staff