Royal_B 36070 3

User Manual: 36070

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 34

Traditionally, one of the goals of incarceration has been rehabilitation.

However, there has been a great debate in the literature about the effi-

cacy of different treatment interventions for offenders and the ability of these

treatments to decrease recidivism rates. In the 1950s and 1960s there was some

evidence that treating offenders worked (Bailey, 1966; Logan, 1972). However

in 1974, Martinson conducted a review of 230 treatment studies and con-

cluded that nothing works in the treatment of offenders (Martinson, 1974).

These findings supported the growing movement in the criminal justice system

from a rehabilitative approach to a punitive one.

While the field moved away from rehabilitation, criminal justice researchers

became interested in developing a theory to explain why some treatments

worked and others did not (Andrews et al., 1990). This resulted in the devel-

opment of the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model for evaluating program

effectiveness (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990). The RNR model has been

empirically supported as a means of effectively evaluating offender treatment

programs (Andrews & Bonta, 1998). The basic principles of RNR are that cor-

rectional interventions must be structured on three core rehabilitation princi-

ples: risk, need, and responsivity. The risk principle addresses the fact that

CHAPTER 3

Treatment of Offender

Populations

Implications for Risk

Management and Community

Reintegration

Elizabeth L. Jeglic, Christian Maile, and

Cynthia Calkins-Mercado

offender treatments must change according to the offender’s risk to the com-

munity. In other words, offenders who are identified as being at high risk to

reoffend should receive the most intensive treatment available, whereas offend-

ers identified as low risk should receive less intensive treatment. According to

the need principle, effective offender therapies must primarily address the

offender’s criminogenic needs and attempt to modify his or her dynamic risk

factors (risk factors that are amenable to change). Lastly, the responsivity prin-

ciple addresses the need for offender treatment therapies to match an offender’s

learning style, motivation level, and cultural background (Andrews & Bonta,

1998; Ward, Vess, & Collie, 2006). Programs that adhered to all three princi-

ples of the RNR model saw 17% and 35% decreases in recidivism for residen-

tial and community programs, respectively (Andrews & Bonta, 2006).

In order to adequately address these three principles for the purposes of

treatment, researchers needed assessment instruments. These assessment instru-

ments targeted the domains of offender risk level, dynamic criminogenic fac-

tors such as prosocial beliefs and cognitive distortions, and individual factors

that could influence treatment outcome (Andrews & Bonta, 2006).

Finally, after the assessment and treatment of an offender, the final phase of

rehabilitation is reintegration back into the community and risk management.

Traditionally risk management has assumed a one-size-fits-all model.

However, with the success of the RNR model of treatment, alternatives to risk

management that adhere to this model and thus continue to target the RNR

principles upon release are also being developed (Conroy, 2006).

Although the overarching goal of well-designed and well-executed rehabili-

tation programs is to use research to inform practice, that is not always the case

in the criminal justice system. This chapter reviews the current state of assess-

ment and treatment of violent offenders, sex offenders, perpetrators of intimate

partner violence, juvenile offenders, female offenders, and offenders with seri-

ous mental illness and addresses how these affect risk management and com-

munity integration.

VIOLENT OFFENDERS

Violent offenders are among the most dangerous offenders in the criminal jus-

tice system, having been arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for felony crimes

such as robbery, assault, rape, and homicide. Violent offenders are also

among the most common type of offenders in the national prison system and

constitute 49% of the state prison population. In addition, violent offenders

accounted for approximately 53% of the growth of the state prison popula-

tion for the 10-year period of 1990–2000. Moreover, the majority of violent

Rethinking Corrections38

offenders (70%) have a prior arrest record, and more than half (56%) have

been arrested for a previous violent felony. It is clear that successful treatment

and rehabilitation of such a prolific and persistent group of offenders are of

great value to society.

Assessment for Treatment

The development and implementation of any treatment program for offenders

start with a thorough assessment of the individual offender. Because treatment

success in forensic settings is most often measured by subsequent reductions in

offender recidivism rates, the measurement of an offender’s risk of recidivism is an

integral part of the development of any treatment plan. A number of such instru-

ments have been developed over the last decade and generally fall into two cate-

gories: risk assessment instruments that measure static (i.e., historical or invariant)

variables, such as the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (Quinsey, Harris, Rice, &

Cormier, 1998), and risk assessment instruments that incorporate both static and

dynamic variables (variables related to reoffending that change over time, such as

pro-criminal attitudes), such as the History, Clinical, Risk 20 (Webster, Douglas,

Eaves, & Hart, 1997), the Violence Risk Scale (Wong & Gordon, 2006), and the

Level of Service Inventory (Andrews & Bonta, 1995). Dynamic risk assessment

instruments are favored in the development of treatment plans because they allow

for the targeting of specific variables that are theoretically amenable to change.

Although the Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (Hare, 1991) and its screening

version, the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version, are often used in risk

assessment procedures, the presence of psychopathy is often considered only one

significantly predictive clinical variable, albeit a powerful one, among a panoply

of variables related to recidivism risk and therefore is not considered to be a stand-

alone risk assessment instrument.

Treatment Techniques

Over the last 20 years or so, research on the development, implementation,

and evaluation of treatment program effectiveness for violent offenders has

proliferated (Polaschek & Dixon, 2001). With regard to the specific structure

of treatment for violent offenders, research has demonstrated support for

cognitive–behavioral and social learning theory–based intervention programs

(Cullen & Gendreau, 1989; Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 2006).

Although they contain many of the same elements as nonviolent offender treat-

ment models, violent offender treatment programs typically encourage the

39Chapter 3 Treatment of Offender Populations

development of offenders’ insight into the functional role of their violent

behavior and attempt to teach offenders alternative behavioral strategies that

will allow them to navigate conflict more effectively. An example of such a pro-

gram was designed and implemented by Polaschek and Dixon (2001) with a

New Zealand sample of violent offenders. It consisted of several components

consistent with these theoretical approaches targeting anger management, com-

munication skill training, and the acquisition of parenting, interpersonal, social

problem solving, and general life skills. In addition, substance abuse and health

education were incorporated into the program, concurrent with individual

therapy sessions. Although this particular program consisted of up to four 90-

minute sessions per day, 5 days per week for 3 months, recommendations for

treatment duration vary. Gendreau and Goggin (1997) recommend that intense

treatment should last for at least 4 months, with a minimum of 100 contact

hours, whereas others argue that in order for a significant reduction in recidi-

vism to be demonstrated, treatment should last at least 6 months (Bush, 1995).

In addition, researchers caution that special consideration must be exercised

when treatment programs for psychopathic violent offenders are developed

(Hare, 1999). Hare suggests that when dealing with psychopathic offenders,

cognitive–behavioral treatment should deemphasize empathy development in

favor of targeting the development of appropriate attributional styles (i.e.,

teaching offenders to accept sole responsibility for their actions rather than

blaming victims). Additionally, psychopathic offenders’ repertoires of

behavioral responses should be expanded, enabling them to fulfill their needs

using more prosocial methods.

Treatment Effectiveness

Surprisingly little research has investigated the effectiveness of treatment and

rehabilitation programs designed to reduce recidivism in violent offenders

(Polaschek & Dixon, 2001). Historically, what little research has been done

regarding the effectiveness of offender rehabilitation and treatment has been

less than optimistic (Andrews et al., 1990; Serin & Brown, 1996, 1997).

However, reexamination of prior research (Andrews et al., 1990) and current

research using more sophisticated methods, with greater scientific rigor, have

provided much more promising results.

Some of the first violent offender treatment effectiveness data emerged from

two studies conducted at the Vermont Department of Corrections cognitive-

based treatment program, initiated in 1988. Both studies indicated that this

treatment program significantly decreased rates of parole violation and rearrest

40 Rethinking Corrections

in a group of violent offenders (Bush, 1995; Henning & Frueh, 1996).

Similarly, preliminary results from the New Zealand treatment program men-

tioned earlier demonstrated positive treatment effects, resulting in a significant

reduction in the frequency and severity of reoffense in offenders released to the

community (lower risk) and a significant reduction in the severity of reoffense

in the parole sample (higher risk) (Polaschek & Dixon, 2001).

However, the most current results come from several studies published in

England and Canada. These studies found that intervention programs based on the

RNR treatment philosophy, incorporating cognitive–behavioral and social learning

theory–based techniques embedded in a relapse prevention framework were

effective in reducing rates of high-risk offender recidivism 2 years after release

(Di Placido, Simon, Witte, Gu, & Wong, 2006; Fylan & Clarke, 2006; Wong,

Gordon, & Gu, 2007; Wong et al., 2005). More specifically, treated offenders

demonstrated a significant reduction in serious institutional infractions and a

decrease in commission of serious violent offenses after release. Interestingly, these

same studies demonstrated modest positive treatment effects, in terms of harm

reduction, for offenders with elevated levels of psychopathy. Although treatment

did not significantly reduce overall rates of recidivism or the frequency of reoffense

in high-psychopathy offenders, it did result in a decrease in severity of reoffenses.

Such findings may be welcome news in a field that is largely doubtful of its ability

to induce therapeutic change in a subset of notoriously treatment-resistant offend-

ers (Hare, 1998; Losel, 1998; Rice, Harris, & Cormier, 1992).

Risk Management

Despite the promising results of these most recent studies, there is a general

consensus in the clinical and research communities that in order for any thera-

peutic gains to be maintained, treatment must not end upon an offender’s

release (Marshall, Eccles, & Barbaree, 1993; Tate, Reppucci, & Mulvey,

1995). Effective treatment modalities must be implemented as comprehensive,

ongoing treatment programs that continue after release, often necessitating the

involvement of a therapeutic community environment and careful monitoring

by parole or probation offices.

SEXUAL OFFENDERS

Although sexual offenders are often treated as a monolithic group, they are

quite heterogeneous with regard to offense patterns, characteristics, and risk

41Chapter 3 Treatment of Offender Populations

for future offending. Therefore, most typological distinctions make reference to

age of victim (adult vs. child), gender of victim, nature of offense (e.g., contact

vs. noncontact offense), or level of fixation (i.e., how intense and exclusive is

the interest in deviant sexual behavior). Assessment strategies and treatment

interventions may thus necessitate different techniques, and risk management

strategies must take into account variation in motivations and patterns,

because these factors can be important in estimating the risk of recidivism.

Assessment for Treatment

An offender’s risk level is an important consideration before treatment ser-

vices are provided. The RNR model posits that offenders who pose the highest

risk of reoffense should receive the most intensive treatment services (Andrews

& Bonta, 1998). A number of risk assessment tools have been developed to

specifically assess risk for recidivism among sex offenders. Although these tools

are critical in assessing an offender’s risk for reoffending before release or other

change in custodial status, such risk-related information is also an important

consideration for pretreatment planning, insofar as these tools are used to

determine which sex offenders need the most intensive treatment services.

Although general measures of cognitive ability (e.g., the Wechsler Adult

Intelligence Scale [Wechsler, 1997]) or personality style (e.g., the Minnesota

Multiphasic Personality Inventory [Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, &

Kaemmer, 1989]) are often used before treatment to enhance understanding of

offender motivational or personality structure or to match learning or inter-

personal style to treatment groups or program offerings, a number of special-

ized assessment instruments have also been developed for use with this

population. The Multiphasic Sex Inventory–II (Nichols & Molinder, 1984) is

a self-report inventory that includes an assessment of deviant sexual history

and interests and an examination of thought patterns and other behavioral and

emotional characteristics related to deviant sexual interest. The Abel

Assessment for Sexual Interest (Abel, Huffman, Warberg, & Holland, 1998), a

computer-based screening measure, was designed to identify the presence of

deviant sexual interest in children. Involving a series of images of children, ado-

lescents, and adults of varying age ranges, this screening tool includes a mea-

sure of visual reaction time to images of these various sexual interest

subgroups, allowing evaluators to compare viewing time with established

norms. Given that evaluees are not aware that the viewing time is being mea-

sured, the Abel measure may be of particular utility in assessing deviant sexual

interest where honest disclosure may be an issue.

42 Rethinking Corrections

The penile plethysmograph (PPG), which includes a measure of blood flow

to the penis and other measures of physiological arousal, is perhaps the most

direct measure of sexual response and interest. Through presentation of video

or audio stimuli involving suggestive sexual content, the PPG allows the iden-

tification of those who have a physiological response to inappropriate or

deviant sexual stimuli. Although its use in legal settings may be problematic

(Barker & Howell, 1992), the PPG can provide an important measure of pre-

treatment and post-treatment response and, like the Abel measure, may be par-

ticularly useful where disclosure is of concern.

Treatment Techniques

The relapse prevention model, adopted from the substance abuse litera-

ture, aims to help sex offenders recognize their offense patterns, toward the

goal of identifying cognitive, emotional, and situational factors that lead to

offending. The aim of this model is to allow offenders to proactively inter-

vene in their offense cycle so as to prevent reoffense. Cognitive–behavioral

therapy (CBT), a short-term and typically time-limited set of techniques,

involves strategies to modify both behavioral habits and cognitive assump-

tions that may be linked to some form of, in this case, sexual deviance. CBT

techniques, which are often used in relapse prevention models, focus on iden-

tifying and modifying thoughts, behaviors, or feelings that have some link to

sexually deviant behavior. Because CBT has received a great deal of empiri-

cal support, it is generally considered to be an efficacious form of therapy

with this population. The central tenet of the good lives model approach to

the treatment of sex offenders is enhancement of human well-being. By focus-

ing on the development of prosocial behaviors and the acquisition of human

goods (e.g., intimacy, safety, creativity, or education), the treatment reduces

motivation to reoffend.

Treatment Efficacy

Doubt remains as to the effectiveness of sex offender treatment. Although

the field has evolved greatly over the past couple of decades (Ward, Mann, &

Gannon, 2007) and evidence suggests that newer treatment models are more

effective than older forms of therapy (Hanson et al., 2002), the question as to

whether sex offender treatment works continues to arouse debate. However,

researchers have generally found that sex offender treatment can reduce both

43Chapter 3 Treatment of Offender Populations

sexual and general recidivism (Hall, 1995; Hanson et al., 2002; Looman,

Dickie, & Abracen, 2005).

Hanson et al. (2002), who conducted a meta-analysis of 43 sexual offender

treatment outcome studies, found that 12.3% of sex offenders who completed

treatment sexually recidivated (i.e., committed a new sexual offense, typically

defined in these studies as rearrest or reconviction), whereas 16.8% of those

who did not complete treatment sexually recidivated over the follow-up period

(average 46 months). Moreover, Hanson et al. reported recidivism rates of

9.9% for offenders who completed more modern forms of treatment (e.g.,

CBT) and 17.4% for offenders who did not receive these newer forms of treat-

ment. Similar sexual and nonsexual recidivism reduction rates based on CBT

interventions have also been identified by other researchers (e.g., Barbaree &

Seto, 1997; Gallagher, Wilson, Hirschfield, Coggeshall, & MacKenzie, 1999;

Hanson, 2000; Looman, Abracen, & Nicholaichuk, 2000; Marshall, Barbaree,

& Eccles, 1991; McGrath, Cumming, Livingston, & Hoke, 2003; McGrath,

Hoke, & Vojtisek, 1998; Nicholaichuk, Gordon, Deqiang, & Wong, 2000;

Scalora & Garbin, 2003). A more recent meta-analysis showed that sexual

offender treatment programs that adhered to RNR principles showed the

largest reduction in both sexual and nonsexual recidivism (Hanson, Bourgon,

Helmus, & Hodgson, 2009).

This finding supports Andrews and Bonta’s (1998) contention under the

RNR model that effective treatment programs should target offenders who are

deemed to be at highest risk to recidivate, focus on treating criminogenic needs,

and be responsive to unique offender learning styles. Given evidence of lower

rates of recidivism associated with more modern treatment models, CBT tech-

niques and the RNR framework are among the most promising models of

treatment with this population.

Risk Management

Given heightened concern about reoffense with this population, evaluation

of sex offenders typically involves an evaluation of recidivism risk. Because

clinical judgment (or a more subjective, impressionistic approach) has been

shown to be inferior to actuarial decision making (or a more statistically based,

formal approach) to risk assessment (Grove et al., 2000; Hanson & Morton-

Bourgon, 2004), adherence to best practices implies the use of empirically val-

idated risk tools. The development of these tools has relied on the work of

Hanson and Bussiere (1998), Hanson and Morton-Bourgon (2004), Hanson

et al. (2002), and others in identifying individual factors (e.g., age) or offense

44 Rethinking Corrections

characteristics (e.g., gender of victim, use of violence) that most strongly cor-

relate with recidivism. Whereas some risk assessment instruments provide

overall risk scores based on the combined weightings of a set number of risk

factors, such as the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (Quinsey et al., 1998),

Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offence Recidivism (Hanson, 1997),

Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool–Revised (Epperson et al., 1999), and

Static-99 (Hanson & Thornton, 2000), others, such as the Sexual Violence

Risk–20 (Boer, Hart, Kropp, & Webster, 1997) and the Risk for Sexual

Violence Protocol (Hart et al., 2003), use a structured professional judgment

approach that provides decision makers with structured guidelines for consid-

ering a list of empirically validated factors but does not provide probabilistic

estimates of risk based on the combination of such factors.

Comparative analyses of the utility of specific risk instruments have been

undertaken elsewhere (see Barbaree, Seto, Langton, & Peacock, 2001; Harris

et al., 2003), and although each instrument seems to have its particular

strengths, as yet there appears to be no single instrument with a well-accepted

superior predictive capability, although each has a demonstrated reliability and

predictive validity that exceeds that of clinical judgment. Continued refinement

of these instruments should enhance our predictive capabilities in the realm of

recidivistic sexual violence, but at present such instruments seem to provide

decision makers with the best available evidence regarding likelihood of recidi-

vism. Indeed, Janus and Prentky (2003) highlight the transparency, account-

ability, and consistency that actuarial tools bring to the risk-finding process

and suggest that actuarial risk assessment provides the most accurate indica-

tion of long-term reoffense risk.

INTIMATE VIOLENCE OFFENDERS

Intimate partner violence is an all too common social phenomenon, with a

yearly average of approximately 511,000 women and 105,000 men reporting

having experienced violence at the hands of an intimate between 2001 and

2005 (Catalano, 2007). Furthermore, 22% of women report experiencing

intimate partner violence at some point in their lives (Tjaden & Thoennes,

1998). Intimate partner violence has serious psychological and physical seque-

lae for victims and has been estimated to cost the U.S. government approxi-

mately $5.8 billion annually in direct (e.g., health care) and indirect (e.g.,

lowered productivity) costs (National Center for Injury Prevention and

Control, 2003). It is clear that treatment and prevention programs targeting

intimate violence are vital.

45Chapter 3 Treatment of Offender Populations

Assessment for Treatment

Research into the assessment of intimate violence offenders has not enjoyed

the same allocation of resources often devoted to the study of other offender

populations (Geffner & Rosenbaum, 2001), such as sex or violent offenders.

However, the limited body of literature examining this issue suggests that the

risk factors for intimate violence recidivism may be similar to those for peer

violence, such as exposure to family and community violence, attachment

difficulties, and child abuse (Moffitt, Krueger, Caspi, & Fagan, 2000; Wolfe &

Feiring, 2000). A handful of risk assessment instruments have been specifically

designed for use with intimate violence offenders. The three most widely used

are the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (Kropp, Hart, Webster, &

Eaves, 1999), a 20-item checklist of clinical variables comprising five broad

risk domains (intimate violence history, criminal history, psychosocial

adjustment, characteristics of index offense, and other); the Revised Conflict

Tactics Scale (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996), a 36-item

self-report measure that assesses the degree to which intimate partners attack

each other, physically and psychologically, and their use of more adaptive

methods of conflict resolution (e.g., reasoning and negotiation); and the

Danger Assessment Scale (Campbell, 1986), a 14-item dichotomous yes/no

scale assessing the presence of factors found to be empirically associated with

battery-related homicide.

However, researchers have noted that risk assessment of intimate violence is

an understudied area, and current instruments have questionable predictive

validity and should serve only as adjuncts to a comprehensive clinical assess-

ment (Geffner & Rosenbaum, 2001).

Treatment Techniques

The first intervention program for intimate violence offenders began in the

mid-1970s, with the number of such programs proliferating in subsequent

decades because of the growing awareness in the legal community of the need

for such treatment programs (Geffner & Rosenbaum, 2001; Scott, 2004).

However, despite such growth the scientific community did not become

involved in the development, implementation, and evaluation of such programs

until well into the 1980s (Babcock, Green, & Robie, 2004). Although there has

been growing demand and interest in intimate violence offender interventions,

many of the programs currently offered lack standardization and, unfortu-

nately, lack sufficient empirical support to warrant their continued use

46 Rethinking Corrections

(Babcock et al., 2004). Among the most common intimate violence offender

programs are those founded in feminist-based psychoeducation and cognitive–

behavioral principles.

The bulk of programs offered as intimate violence prevention programs can

be roughly categorized as following the feminist psychoeducational model,

often referred to as the Duluth model after its originator, the Duluth Domestic

Abuse Intervention Program in Minnesota (Babcock et al., 2004; Pence &

Paymar, 1993). This paradigm, founded in social work theory, is often viewed

as an educational rather than a true therapeutic approach (such as the cognitive–

behavioral approaches) because of its avoidance of diagnostic labels and other

psychological constructs. This model posits that intimate partner violence

stems from an offender’s patriarchal views coupled with the differential power

dynamic between men and women (Dobash & Dobash, 1977; Pence &

Paymar, 1993). The goal of this psychoeducational model, conducted almost

exclusively in a group format, is to challenge the offender’s existing views and

replace them with more egalitarian beliefs, thereby effecting a reduction in inti-

mate violent behavior (Babcock et al., 2004).

Less prevalent than the feminist psychoeducational intervention model are

programs derived largely from cognitive–behavioral psychological theory. Like

the Duluth model, cognitive–behavioral interventions are conducted almost

exclusively in a group format and target the development of offenders’ insight

into the functional role that intimate partner violence plays in their lives

(Babcock et al., 2004). Techniques that are commonly used in cognitive–

behavioral interventions include skill training aimed at enhancing assertiveness,

communication, social skills, and anger management strategies. However, crit-

ics point out that many intimate violence offender programs labeled as CBT use

a range of techniques that would not be used in true cognitive–behavioral ther-

apies and more closely resemble psychoeducational models, such as the Duluth

model, rather than traditional CBT (Dunford, 2000). Indeed, many researchers

argue that most programs offered to intimate violence offenders are paradig-

matic hybrids, blending elements of feminist psychoeducational models and

cognitive–behavioral approaches (Gregory & Erez, 2002; Whitaker et al., 2006).

Treatment Effectiveness

Historically, research regarding the effectiveness of intimate violence

offender treatment programs has been hampered by several factors. First,

before individual states mandated treatment for all intimate violence offenders,

engagement in voluntary treatment programs was abysmally low (Geffner &

47Chapter 3 Treatment of Offender Populations

Rosenbaum, 2001). Furthermore, more recent research suggests that the inti-

mate violence offender population is much more heterogeneous than previ-

ously believed. An identified subset of these offenders are viewed as highly

treatment resistant because of their reluctance to initially engage in treatment

and to remain in treatment once engaged, with some estimates suggesting that

50–75% of these offenders drop out early in treatment (Daly & Pelowski,

2000; Geffner & Rosenbaum, 2001). Only with the advent of mandatory treat-

ment has enrollment in intimate violence offender treatment programs reached

a level conducive to empirical scrutiny.

Second, early research on treatment effectiveness with intimate violence

offenders has been plagued by methodological flaws including poor opera-

tionalization of outcome variables (Whitaker et al., 2006). In other words,

measurement of treatment success has varied widely, precluding comparisons

across studies. Typically, treatment effectiveness has been measured by a reduc-

tion in a partner’s use of physical violence, through self- or partner report,

criminal complaints, or offender rearrest (Gregory & Erez, 2002; Scott, 2004).

Despite these challenges, recent research has emerged elucidating intimate

violence offender treatment program effectiveness, although the results have

been less than optimistic. For instance, recent meta-analyses and other outcome

studies have consistently found small effect sizes for such programs (Davis &

Taylor, 1999; Dunford, 2000; Green & Babcock, 2001; Levesque & Gelles,

1998), regardless of the treatment modality, with average effect sizes of approx-

imately 5% reductions in rates of recidivism (Babcock et al., 2004). Proponents

of intimate violence offender treatment argue that although such a modest

reduction in reoffense rates may seem inconsequential, a reduction of even 5%

would equate to approximately 44,000 fewer women being physically abused

each year. However, critics point out that even these modest treatment gains

apply only to recidivism in terms of physical abuse, with other studies demon-

strating that treatment is even less effective in reducing other forms of intimate

partner violence such as psychological or verbal abuse (Gondolf, 2002). Taylor,

Davis, and Maxwell (2001) provide more optimistic findings, concluding that

when offenders are categorized and excluded from analysis based on low treat-

ment motivation, a significant effect for treatment on reoffense rates does

emerge. That is, for offenders who express interest in and actively engage in the

treatment process, significant therapeutic gains can be made.

Risk Management

Currently, treatment programs for intimate violence offenders are designed

to be universally applicable. With the surge of interest and research in the

48 Rethinking Corrections

development, implementation, and evaluation of such programs, there has

been a move to assess and refer individual offenders to programs specifically

designed to suit their individual capacities and criminogenic needs

(Holtzworth-Munroe, 2001). It is believed that such a paradigmatic shift, con-

sistent with the RNR model, would lead to better risk management services for

intimate violence offenders.

JUVENILE OFFENDERS

With more than 2.2 million juvenile arrests in 2006, juvenile offenders are

responsible for a significant proportion of criminal offenses, accounting for

17% of all violent offenses and 26% of all property crimes in the United States

(Snyder, 2008). In the last 20 years, the rate of juvenile violent offenses, includ-

ing homicide, has increased dramatically. Moreover, because of the current age

distribution of the general population, it has been estimated that the juvenile

arrest rate will have doubled in the 15-year period of 1996 to 2010 (Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1996; Sickmund, Snyder, & Poe-

Yamagata, 1997).

Assessment for Treatment

The assessment of juvenile offenders for risk of recidivism and treatment

planning has been hampered by a disproportionate allocation of resources to

the study of adult offender populations. Although the risk assessment of adult

offenders has generally shifted from reliance on subjective clinical judgment to

more objective actuarial methods, the risk assessment of juvenile offenders has

been slow to follow suit (Hoge, 2002). Only recently has research into the

development and validation of juvenile assessment instruments accelerated. In

the last decade, numerous structured instruments specifically designed for use

with juvenile offenders have been developed.

Among the more commonly used risk assessment instruments are the Youth

Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (Hoge & Andrews, 2001), a

structured clinical inventory consisting of 42 items and 8 subscales that can be

administered with minimal training; the Child and Adolescent Functional

Assessment Scale (Hodges, 1994, 1999), a structured instrument designed to

ascertain impairments in emotional and behavioral functioning associated with

recidivism; the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (Borum,

Bartel, & Forth, 2003), a 30-item structured instrument designed to assess four

major domains (historical, social/contextual, and individual risk factors and

49Chapter 3 Treatment of Offender Populations

protective factors); and the Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Youth Version (Hare,

Forth, & Kosson, 1994), a 20-item adaptation of the adult version designed to

measure the presence of psychopathic traits in juveniles, particularly older juve-

niles. It should be noted that the use of this instrument with juveniles remains

controversial because of concerns about the construct validity of juvenile psy-

chopathy (Hoge, 2002).

Treatment Techniques

Numerous treatment modalities have been developed and implemented with

juvenile offenders, but the bulk of empirical data appears to favor two

approaches: treatments based in cognitive–behavioral and social learning the-

ory and family system therapy.

Intervention programs grounded in cognitive–behavioral and social learning

principles target maladaptive thought processes and impairments in social problem-

solving skills found to be linked with the onset and maintenance of antisocial

behavior (Tarolla, Wagner, Rabinowitz, & Tubman, 2002). Although the spe-

cific techniques used in any given cognitive–behavioral treatment program can

vary somewhat, many programs use a number of the following techniques in a

group therapy format: cognitive skill training, cognitive restructuring, interper-

sonal problem solving, social skill training, anger management, moral reason-

ing, victim impact, substance abuse counseling, behavior modification, and

relapse prevention (Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005). Supplemental individual

therapy is often offered to maintain active therapeutic engagement and to reduce

attrition. Some researchers and clinicians have criticized the use of CBT-based

approaches as too narrow in their focus, arguing that such treatment modalities

ignore the role of dysfunctional family relationships, deviant peer groups, and

negative school and neighborhood environments in the etiology and mainte-

nance of juvenile antisocial behavior (Borduin et al., 1995).

These critics argue that for juvenile offender treatment to be effective, treat-

ment must be customized to fit the needs and capabilities of the individual

offender, his family, and his environment (e.g., school, neighborhood); take a

holistic approach, allowing the multiple determinants of juvenile antisocial

behavior to be targeted for intervention concurrently; and be provided in a

number of settings (e.g., home and community) to ensure optimal generaliza-

tion of newly acquired skills and produce more stable therapeutic change

(Tarolla et al., 2002; Tate et al., 1995). Treatment programs based in family

system theory were developed to provide such a comprehensive approach to

juvenile offender treatment. Although a variety of treatments fall under the

50 Rethinking Corrections

broad umbrella of family system therapy, all such treatment programs attempt

to enhance family communication styles and use techniques such as behavioral

contracting, rule clarification, and positive reinforcement to achieve desired

behavioral outcomes.

Among the most successful family system treatment approaches is multisys-

temic therapy (MST), developed in the 1980s by Henggeler et al. (1986). This

treatment seeks to keep the family intact while addressing a number of issues

believed to be related to the juvenile offense cycle, such as maladaptive cogni-

tive styles and attitudes, social and relational difficulties (at both the immedi-

ate micro and larger macro levels), and symptoms of mental illness (e.g.,

depression), if relevant. MST uses numerous empirically supported treatment

approaches including techniques based in cognitive–behavior therapy, social

learning, strategic and structural family therapy, and behavioral training for

the juvenile’s parents or primary caregivers.

Treatment Effectiveness

Research suggests that without treatment, 60–96% of juvenile offenders will

reoffend within approximately 1 year of arrest (Jenson & Howard, 1998;

Lattimore, Visher, & Linster, 1995; Lewis, Yeager, Lovely, Stein, & Cobham-

Portorreal, 1994). Despite skepticism about the effectiveness of treatment with

juvenile offenders, recent advances in intervention development and imple-

mentation have provided promising results for both cognitive–behavioral,

social learning–based, and family system therapy.

Mounting literature supports the effectiveness of cognitive–behavioral

approaches in enhancing social problem-solving skills and regulating impulsive

behavior, reducing rates of reoffense among juvenile offenders (Andrews et al.,

1990; Dowden & Andrews, 2003; Gendreau & Ross, 1979; Larson, 1990;

Lipsey & Wilson, 1998; Redondo, Sanchez-Meca, & Garrido, 1999). Redondo

and colleagues found that CBT programs, in general, produced a mean reduc-

tion in recidivism rates among treated juvenile offenders of 25%. Moreover,

this effect resulted in a 50% reduction for treated offenders who received pro-

grams optimally configured to include the most effective components (i.e.,

those that included anger management and interpersonal effectiveness as tar-

gets). Interestingly, treatment programs that included victim impact and behav-

ior modification components were found to be less effective. Furthermore,

CBT-based approaches appeared to be most effective with higher-risk juvenile

offenders, directly contradicting clinical lore suggesting that high-risk offend-

ers are untreatable (Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005).

51Chapter 3 Treatment of Offender Populations

Similarly, a significant body of literature supports the use of more holistic

family system approaches (Kazdin, 1987; Shadish et al., 1993), particularly

MST (Borduin, 1999; Henggeler, 1996; Schoenwald, Ward, Henggeler, Pickrel,

& Patel, 1996). MST has been demonstrated to produce both short-term and

long-term reductions in recidivism among juvenile offenders, including persis-

tent and seriously violent ones (Borduin et al., 1995). More specifically, it was

found that 14 months after referral for MST services, juvenile offenders had

been rearrested 50% fewer times than their treatment-as-usual counterparts

(Henggeler, Melton, & Smith, 1992). Furthermore, MST-treated juvenile

offenders had an overall reincarceration rate of 20%, compared with 68% for

their treatment-as-usual counterparts. Finally, treatment effectiveness has been

maintained for follow-up periods of up to 4 years, with MST-treated juvenile

offenders being arrested at much lower rates than the offenders who received

treatment as usual; when rearrest did occur, the MST-treated offenders com-

mitted significantly less serious crimes (Borduin et al., 1995).

Risk Management

As with treatment of all offenders, treatment of juvenile offenders should be

viewed as an ongoing, dynamic process following the RNR paradigm. That is,

intensity of treatment should be matched to the perceived risk of the juvenile

offender, and criminogenic factors should be targeted for treatment, with the

assumption that they may change as the juvenile develops (Borum &

Verhaagen, 2006). Furthermore, only empirically supported treatments should

be implemented, treatment should be customized to suit the unique capabilities

and characteristics of the individual juvenile offender and his or her environ-

ment, and both treatment providers and community supervision agents should

continually monitor, reassess, and modify intervention programs to ensure that

treatment gains are maintained.

FEMALE OFFENDERS

Little research has focused on the treatment of female offenders, which may

stem from the fact that females offend at much lower rates than do males,

making up 8–18% of the total population of offenders (Bonta, Pang, &

Wallace-Capretta, 1995). Given their lower rates of offending, research has

either neglected female offender populations or treated them similarly to male

offender populations, with little attention paid to whether motivations for

52 Rethinking Corrections

offending or crime patterns and recidivism are distinct for female offenders.

Therefore, it is not known whether the needs and patterns of female offend-

ers are unique.

Assessment for Treatment

Given that female offenders may have unique life experiences and responsi-

bilities (e.g., pregnancy, childcare) (Koons, Burrow, Morash, & Bynum, 1997)

and may be affected more frequently by certain life events (e.g., child sexual

abuse, domestic violence, adult sexual assault) and clinical syndromes (e.g.,

depression or posttraumatic stress disorder) (Poels, 2007), it stands to reason

that gender-specific issues warrant attention in a clinical evaluation. Indeed,

although measures of personality, cognitive functioning, substance abuse his-

tory, or mood dysfunction are likely to be the same as those used with male

offenders, a full and comprehensive evaluation should consider the unique

needs and obstacles that female offenders may face both in accessing treatment

and in benefiting from services offered. Although gender-specific measures are

seldom used, at least some evidence suggests that economic disadvantage and

social relationships may have differential impact on risk for offending among

men and women (Heilbrun et al., 2008).

Treatment Techniques

Given the aforementioned unique needs of female offenders, some suggest

that more gender-responsive treatment services be offered (Koons et al., 1997;

Morash, Bynum, & Koons, 1998). For example, like their male counterparts,

female inmates may be cut off from family and supportive networks. However,

this separation could be particularly difficult for mothers with young children,

and maintaining family contacts and connections may be an especially impor-

tant treatment target for females (Monster & Micucci, 2005). However, some

evidence suggests that specific programming for causes of female criminality

may not be offered in correctional settings (Monster & Micucci, 2005),

although there is a shift toward offering more gender-specific programming

(Heilbrun et al., 2008). Moreover, evidence suggests that most treatment pro-

gramming may be based on patterns of male offending (Monster & Micucci,

2005). However, little is known about whether the existing treatment literature

or existing treatment programs can be simply extended to female offenders or

whether different models of treatment should be used with this population.

53Chapter 3 Treatment of Offender Populations

Treatment Efficacy

Little research has specifically examined the effectiveness of treatment for

female offenders. Using meta-analytic techniques, Dowden and Andrews

(1999) examined 26 studies that investigated the effectiveness of corrections-

based treatment for female offenders, finding support for the RNR model of

treatment. Indeed, Dowden and Andrews found larger treatment effects for

programs that directed more treatment services to higher-risk (rather than

lower-risk) female offenders and larger treatment effects in programs that

focused on criminogenic (vs. noncriminogenic) needs. Specifically, focus on

interpersonal criminogenic needs (family process or antisocial associate vari-

ables) was most strongly associated with reduced reoffending. Program focus

on antisocial cognition and self-control deficits also had a significant associa-

tion with reduced reoffending (Dowden & Andrews, 1999). Notably, although

substance abuse and basic education may intuitively appear to be important

treatment targets, Dowden and Andrews did not find these variables to be asso-

ciated with treatment outcomes in female offenders. Importantly, no research

has looked specifically at treatment responsivity in female offenders, specifi-

cally whether women may have particular learning or interpersonal styles that

affect recidivism rates (Dowden & Andrews, 1999). Although what works

with female offenders may in many ways be an extension of what works with

male offenders, more research attention, particularly with regard to issues of

treatment responsivity, is needed in this area.

Risk Management

Because their pathway to crime may be different, it stands to reason that risk

assessment should also consider unique risk factors predictive of future offend-

ing among women who commit crime. Unfortunately, given a dearth of research

identifying risk correlates for female offenders, little is known about whether

there are specific and unique risk factors for this population. Therefore, risk

assessment tools may lack predictive utility if applied to female offenders.

Although identified factors that predict future offending for male offenders may

be similar to those that predict future offending for female offenders, this is not

necessarily the case. Moreover, even if the factors are similar, their levels of

association with future offending and combinations may be quite different.

Although at least some evidence suggests that risk factors may be generally sim-

ilar for male and female offenders (Heilbrun et al., 2008; Loucks & Zamble,

2000), there do appear to be at least some distinctions in pathways to and

54 Rethinking Corrections

maintenance of offending (Heilbrun et al., 2008). As with any population or

subgroup not well represented in the developmental samples on which risk

assessment tools are based, it may be premature to extend risk estimates to

female offenders without a more established normative comparison group

(Poels, 2007). Clearly, more research is needed that establishes how males and

females differ, and this research can be used to extend or develop genderspecific

assessment tools and develop or enhance more gender-responsive programming.

OFFENDERS WITH SERIOUS MENTAL DISORDERS

Mental illness is prevalent among forensic populations. Since the deinstitution-

alization movement of the latter half of the 20th century, a significant increase

in the number of people with severe and persistent mental illness in the prison

system has been observed (Lamb & Weinberger, 2008). These mental illnesses

include bipolar disorder, major depression, and psychotic disorders such as

schizophrenia (American Psychiatric Association, 2004). In the United States,

the numbers of people with mental illness in prisons vary according to the

method used to assess prevalence. For instance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics

(2006) reported that approximately 55% of male offenders and 73% of female

offenders in state prison had a diagnosable mental illness based on self-report,

and others have estimated the prevalence of mental illness among prison

inmates to be approximately 16% based on mental health service records

(Ditton, 1999). However, it is believed that only about one third of offenders

with mental illness receive any treatment for their mental illness while they are

incarcerated (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006).

Assessment for Treatment

Inmates are generally screened for mental illness at intake (Beck &

Maruschak, 2001). Currently there appears to be no standard approach for

assessing mental illness among offenders. Practices include clinical interviews

and assessments and actuarial approaches (Adams & Ferrandino, 2008). The

overarching goal of these assessments is to identify offenders who need mental

health treatment and to assess their needs and security level.

Several measures have been used to assess need based on the RNR model.

One such measure is the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (Andrews &

Bonta, 1995), a rating scale designed to assess the risk for general recidivism.

However, this instrument was designed for use with the general prison population

55Chapter 3 Treatment of Offender Populations

and not specifically for mentally ill offenders (Long, Webster, Waine, Motala,

& Hollin, 2008). More recently, scales specifically designed to assess treatment

needs (Camberwell Assessment of Need; Thomas et al., 2003) and security

needs (Operationalized Risk Factors; Brown & Lloyd, 2008) among mentally

disordered offenders have been developed. Both scales have been found to be

useful and improve mentally ill offenders’ access to care (Brown & Lloyd,

2008; Long et al., 2008).

Treatment Techniques

The primary line of treatment for mentally ill offenders is psychotropic med-

ication. It is estimated that 73% of state prisons distribute medications to

offenders in their facilities, resulting in 114,400 inmates receiving psychotropic

drugs during their incarcerations (Beck & Maruschak, 2001).

Recently more focus has been placed on psychological interventions for men-

tally ill offenders with the passage of the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and

Crime Reduction Act of 2004 in the United States. This act provides funding to

train correctional and mental health staff to treat mentally ill offenders and pro-

vides mentally ill offenders with greater access to mental health treatment both

while incarcerated and when released into the community (American

Psychological Association, 2004). Such interventions include in vivo training of

goal-directed actions for offenders with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (Hodel

& West, 2003), CBT for long-term inpatients with psychotic disorders and foren-

sic histories (Garrett & Lerman, 2007), dialectical behavior therapy for offend-

ers with borderline personality disorder characteristics (Linehan, 1993), and the

Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder Programme (Mullen, 2007).

Some prisons have developed therapeutic communities (TCs). Generally TCs

in prisons are usually separate from the general population and are considered

therapeutic milieus. In this environment offenders develop prosocial skills that

can be used to transition back into the community (Adams & Ferrandino,

2008). Although TCs traditionally have been used to treat offenders with sub-

stance use disorders (see Linhorst, Knight, Johnston, & Trickey, 2001), these

programs also have been modified to treat other types of offenders, including

those with mental illness (Saum et al., 2007). Staff in the TC environment

receive specialized training on how to deal with mentally ill people, and many

TC programs have elements of aftercare to help offenders with mental illness

in the community (Wormith et al., 2007).

Another form of treatment for people with mental illness is the mental health

court. These courts were established in an effort to divert people with serious

56 Rethinking Corrections

mental illness from prisons and jails (Slate & Johnson, 2008). The goal of these

programs is to provide these people with the treatment and services they need in

an effort to prevent recidivism (Lamb & Weinberger, 2008). Traditionally, men-

tal health courts heard cases of mentally ill people who were accused of misde-

meanor crimes, but some courts are also hearing cases of mentally ill people

who have been charged with violent felonies (Fisler, 2005). Mental health courts

differ from traditional courtrooms in that all those involved (such as the judge,

prosecutors, and defense counsel) have had training and experience in working

with people with mental illness. Furthermore, they are familiar with community

mental health resources, and they make every attempt to provide mental health

treatment and support to offenders once they are released from jail and reenter

the community (Lamb & Weinberger, 2008).

Treatment Efficacy

Evidence suggests that people with severe mental illness benefit from treat-

ment, which lowers their recidivism rate (Swanson et al., 2006). However, a

substantial proportion of people with mental illness who commit crimes are

resistant to psychiatric treatment (Draine, Solomon, & Meyerson, 1994;

Laberge & Morin, 1995). For example, they may refuse referrals, miss appoint-

ments, refuse to take medication, and abuse substances. The failure to partici-

pate or adhere to treatment can substantially interfere with treatment success

(Lamb & Weinberger, 1998). Therefore, programs that meet the specific needs

of those with mental illness are likely to have the greatest success. For exam-

ple, Griffith, Hiller, Knight, and Simpson (1999) found that TCs were the most

cost effective for those at highest risk for recidivism, such as those with mental

illness. Furthermore, Lees, Manning, and Rawlings (1999) found that TCs sig-

nificantly decreased recidivism rates for offenders with borderline personality

disorder and other mental disorders. The outcome research on mental health

courts is still in its infancy, but preliminary studies have found that mentally ill

offenders who successfully completed mental health court programs were less

likely to recidivate and engage in future acts of violence than those who did not

participate in mental health court programs (McNeil & Binder, 2007).

Risk Management

A recent development in risk management for offenders with mental illness

is the emergence of assertive community treatment for forensic populations

57Chapter 3 Treatment of Offender Populations

(FACT). FACT is based on assertive community treatment (ACT), with the pri-

mary goal of preventing reincarceration. ACT is designed to prevent repeat

hospitalizations for mental illness by providing a clinical team to help these

people in the community around the clock (Morrissey, Meyer, & Cuddeback,

2007). Whereas ACT programs target clients of local hospitals and mental

health agencies, FACT teams target county jails. The effectiveness of ACT has

been well established (see Bond, Drake, Mueser, & Latimer, 2001). In theory

FACT should operate on the same premises as ACT but with mentally ill foren-

sic outpatients; however, in practice, resources are not available for FACT pro-

grams to adhere to ACT guidelines. Preliminary uncontrolled findings suggest

that FACT programs decrease arrests and hospitalization and reduce yearly

service costs (see Morrissey et al., 2007, for review).

COMMUNITY REINTEGRATION AND RISK MANAGEMENT

Each year, more than half a million offenders are released back into the com-

munity (Office of Justice Programs, 2004); however, many of these offenders

eventually relapse and return to prison (Langan & Levin, 2002). A question

that is frequently asked of researchers and policymakers is, “How can we stop

this revolving door?” Although there are no easy answers to this question, one

solution appears to lie in the RNR model. Offender treatment based on the

principles of the RNR model has been found to reduce recidivism. Not only

can these principles be used in prison-based programs, they can also be applied

to relapse prevention and community reentry programs. For example, infor-

mation garnered from intake screenings such as offender risk level, mental

health status, and level of need can inform discharge planning and ensure that

appropriate resources are available to the offender upon release (Hammett,

Roberts, & Kennedy, 2001). This information can then be used to tailor reen-

try programs to coincide with offenders’ periods of increased risk (Motiuk &

Serin, 1998). Agencies should work together with the criminal justice system to

more seamlessly provide services to meet the needs of released offenders

(Wormith et al., 2007).

In addition to assessment, correctional treatment must be connected to rein-

tegration efforts so that skills that are learned in prison can be practiced and

reinforced in the community. Furthermore, changes that may occur within cor-

rectional treatment should be assessed and incorporated into the release plan

(Serin & Kennedy, 1997).

Taxman, Young, and Byrne (2004) developed a list of six principles for suc-

cessful reentry based on the most current research literature on the RNR

model:

58 Rethinking Corrections

•Emphasizing informal social control such that family, friends, and

community members are enlisted to prevent the offender from reoffending

•Ensuring sufficient duration of the intervention, because behavior change

takes a long time, and continuing prison-based initiatives in the

community can give offenders the 12–24 months they need to learn new

skills and behaviors

•Providing sufficient dosage of the intervention so that the intensity and

frequency of the programming meet the offender’s risk level and needs

•Providing comprehensive, integrated, and flexible services designed to

address the psychosocial needs of the offender

•Ensuring continuity in behavior change interventions such that

interventions that are started in prison are continued into the community

with aftercare programming

•Providing clear communication of offender responsibility and expectations

so that the offender is involved with the development of rules and sanctions,

thus ensuring more accountability

Offenders should be active participants in the development of the treatment

and reintegration plan, and adherence to these principles decreases the risk of

recidivism (Taxman, 2004).

Although most current reintegration programming is based on the RNR

model, several reentry programs based in the restorative justice movement have

gained prominence recently. One example is the Options to Parole Suspension

project in Canada, whose goal is to prevent offenders released on parole from

returning to prison. This program enlists professionally supported volunteers

in the community to work with high-risk sex offenders. The goal of these types

of reintegration programs is to empower stakeholders (Wilson, Huculak, &

McWhinnie, 2002; also see chapter 9, this book).

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

At present, a large portion of the burden of preventing recidivism falls on the

criminal justice system through the use of sanctions and monitoring. However,

treatment removes some of this burden because unlike all other methods of

containing offenders, treatment prevents recidivism by making the offenders

responsible for their own actions, providing them the tools to restrain them-

selves from committing further crimes (Beck & Klein-Saffran, 1990; Levenson,

2003). This benefits offenders as they learn new skills and become more self-

sufficient, and it also alleviates some of the financial, physical, and psychological

59Chapter 3 Treatment of Offender Populations

burdens caused by repeat offenders. Many researchers advocate active partici-

pation by offenders in their rehabilitation and reintegration plans (Taxman,

2004). It is assumed that if offenders are stakeholders in their treatment, they

will assume a greater level of accountability.

Currently, treatment for many offenders is not a mandated component of

incarceration. Consequently, offenders may complete their sentences without

addressing any of their criminogenic needs. Additionally, for many offenders

treatment is not designed to adhere to the principles of the RNR model.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that treatment based on the RNR model

can decrease recidivism (see Andrews et al., 1990, for review), and therefore it

is unclear why some offenders are not participating in treatment at all or are

participating in treatment programs that have no empirical support.

Many of the laws pertaining to offenders that have been enacted in recent

years were developed in response to public pressure and outcry (Petrunik,

2002). Most of these laws are designed to contain and monitor offenders, not

to provide treatment. However, several studies have found that the public is

supportive of rehabilitation efforts (Brown, 1999; McCorkle, 1993; Valliant,

Furac, & Antonowicz, 1994). For example, Gideon and Loveland (chapter 2)

found in a public opinion survey of residents in New York and the Tri-State

Region that about 80% of respondents supported the Second Chance Act and

thus are supportive of rehabilitation initiatives. Although the public and poli-

cymakers may support treatment in theory, very few people are vocal advo-

cates for it. Therefore, researchers must educate stakeholders about the

importance of empirically supported treatment methods in the reduction of

recidivism so that these types of rehabilitation and reintegration programs are

provided to all offenders.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Why do you think that not all rehabilitation programs adhere to the RNR model?

2. What would be the advantages and disadvantages of a generic rehabilitation program

that could be adapted to meet the needs of various offender populations?

3. How can the transition from prison to the community be made in such a way as to min-

imize the risk of recidivism?

4. What facets of treatment are most important for risk management?

5. How can we use assessment to facilitate offender reentry?

60 Rethinking Corrections

SUGGESTED READINGS

Andrews, D., Zinger, I., Hoge, R., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. (1990). Does correctional

treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis.

Criminology, 28, 369–404.

Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (1989). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: Reconsidering

the “nothing works” debate. In L. Goldstein & D. L. McKenzie (Eds.), The American prison:

Issues in research policy (pp. 23–44). New York: Plenum.

Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (1997). Correctional treatment: Accomplishments and realities. In

P. Van Voorhis, M. Braswell, & D. Lester (Eds.), Correctional counseling and rehabilitation

(3rd ed., pp. 271–279). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. R. (1979). Effective correctional treatment: Bibliotherapy for cynics.

Crime and Delinquency, 25, 463–489.

Henning, K., & Frueh, B. C. (1996). Cognitive behavioral treatment of incarcerated offenders: An

evaluation of the Vermont Department of Correction’s cognitive self-change program. Criminal

Justice and Behavior, 23, 523–541.

Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public

Interest, 35, 22–54.

Motiuk, L. L., & Serin, R. (1998). Situating risk assessment in the reintegration potential frame-

work. Forum on Corrections Research, 10(1), 19–22.

Wormith, J., Althouse, R., Simpson, M., Reitzel, L., Fagan, T., & Morgan, R. (2007). The rehabil-

itation and integration of offenders: The current landscape and some future directions for cor-

rectional psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 879–892.

REFERENCES

Abel, G. G., Huffman, J., Warberg, B., & Holland, C. L. (1998). Visual reaction time and plethys-

mography as measures of sexual interest in child molesters. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of

Research and Treatment, 10, 81–95.

Adams, K., & Ferrandino, J. (2008). Managing mentally ill inmates in prisons. Criminal Justice and

Behavior, 35(8), 913–927.

American Psychiatric Association. (2004). Mental illness and the criminal justice system: Redirecting

resources toward treatment, not containment. Arlington, VA: Author.

American Psychological Association. (2004). The American Psychological Association applauds pas-

sage of the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2004. Washington,

DC: Author.

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The LSI-R: The Level of Service Inventory–Revised. Toronto:

Multi-Health Systems.

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH:

Anderson.

61Chapter 3 Treatment of Offender Populations

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Newark, NJ:

LexisNexis.

Andrews, D., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering

psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 19–52.

Andrews, D., Zinger, I., Hoge, R., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. (1990). Does correctional

treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis.

Criminology, 28, 369–404.

Babcock, J. C., Green, C. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic

review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023–1053.

Bailey, W. C. (1966). Correctional outcome: An evaluation of 100 reports. Journal of Criminal Law,

Criminology and Police Science, 57, 153–160.

Barbaree, H. E., & Seto, M. C. (1997). Pedophilia: Assessment and treatment. In D. R. Laws &

W. T. O’Donoghue (Eds.), Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 175–193).

New York: Guilford.

Barbaree, H. E., Seto, M. C., Langton, C. M., & Peacock, E. J. (2001). Evaluating the predictive

accuracy of six risk assessment instruments for adult sex offenders. Criminal Justice and

Behavior, 28, 490–521.

Barker, J. G., & Howell, R. J. (1992). The plethysmograph: A review of recent literature. Bulletin

of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 20, 13–25.

Beck, A. J., & Maruschak, L. M. (2001). Mental health treatment in state prisons, 2000. Bureau of

Justice Statistics special report. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Beck, J. L., & Klein-Saffran, J. (1990). Home confinement and the use of electronic monitoring with

federal parolees. Federal Probation, 54, 23–24.

Boer, D. P., Hart, S. D., Kropp, P. R., & Webster, C. D. (1997). Manual for the Sexual Violence

Risk–20. Vancouver: The British Columbia Institute Against Family Violence.

Bond, G. R., Drake, R. E., Mueser, K. T., & Latimer, E. (2001). Assertive community treatment:

Critical ingredients and impact on patients. Disease Management and Health Outcomes, 9(3),

141–159.

Bonta, J., Pang, B., & Wallace-Capretta, S. (1995). Predictors of recidivism among incarcerated

female offenders. The Prison Journal, 73, 277–294.

Borduin, C. M. (1999). Multisystemic treatment of criminality and violence in adolescents. Journal

of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 242–249.

Borduin, C. M., Mann, B. J., Cone, L. T., Henggeler, S. W., Fucci, B. R., Blaske, D. M., et al. (1995).

Multisystemic treatment of serious juvenile offenders: Long-term prevention of criminality and

violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(4), 569–578.

Borum, R., Bartel, P., & Forth, A. (2003). Manual for the Structured Assessment for Violence Risk

in Youth (SAVRY) version 1.1. Tampa: Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South

Florida.

Borum, R., & Verhaagen, D. (2006). Assessing and managing violence risk in juveniles. New York:

Guilford.

Brown, C. S. H., & Lloyd, K. (2008). OPRISK: A structured checklist assessing security needs for

mentally disordered offenders referred to high security psychiatric hospitals. Criminal Behaviour

and Mental Health, 18, 190–202.

62 Rethinking Corrections

Brown, S. (1999). Public attitudes toward the treatment of sex offenders. Legal and Criminological

Psychology, 4, 239–252.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2000). Intimate partner violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, NCJ-178247.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2005. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, NCJ-213133.

Bush, J. (1995). Teaching self-risk management to violent offenders. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What

works: Reducing reoffending—Guidelines from research and practice (pp. 139–154).

Chichester: Wiley.

Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). The

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and

scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Campbell, J. (1986). Nursing assessment for risk of homicide with battered women. Advances in

Nursing Science, 8, 36–51.

Catalano, S. (2007). Intimate partner violence in the United States. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Retrieved April 27, 2009, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ipvus.pdf

Conroy, M. A. (2006). Risk management of sex offenders: A model for community intervention.

Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 34, 5–24.

Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (1989). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: Reconsidering

the “nothing works” debate. In L. Goldstein & D. L. McKenzie (Eds.), The American prison:

Issues in research policy (pp. 23–44). New York: Plenum.

Daly, J. E., & Pelowski, S. (2000). Predictors of dropout among men who batter: A review of stud-

ies with implication for research and practice. Violence and Victims, 15, 137–160.

Davis, R. C., & Taylor, B. G. (1999). Does batterer treatment reduce violence? A synthesis of the

literature. Women and Criminal Justice, 10(2), 69–93.

Di Placido, C., Simon, T., Witte, T., Gu, D., & Wong, S. C. P. (2006). Treatment of gang members

can reduce recidivism and institutional misconduct. Law and Human Behavior, 30(1), 93–114.

Ditton, P. M. (1999). Special report: Mental health and treatment of inmates and probationers.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1977). Wives: The appropriate victims of marital violence.

Victimology, 2, 426–442.

Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (1999). What works for female offenders: A meta-analytic review.

Crime & Delinquency, 45, 438–452.

Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2003). Does family intervention work for delinquents? Results of

a meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 45(3), 327–342.

Draine, J., Solomon, P., & Meyerson, A. T. (1994). Predictors of reincarceration among patients

who received psychiatric services in jail. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 45, 163–167.

Dunford, F. W. (2000). The San Diego Navy experiment: An assessment of interventions for men

who assault their wives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 468–476.

Epperson, D. L., Kaul, J. D., Huot, S. J., Hesselton, D., Alexander, W., & Goldman, R. (1999).

Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool–Revised (MnSOST-R) technical paper: Development,

validation, and recommended risk level cut scores. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from

http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/epperson/TechUpdatePaper12-03.pdf

63Chapter 3 Treatment of Offender Populations

Fisler, C. (2005). Building trust and managing risk: A look at a felony mental health court.

Psychology, Public Policy and the Law, 11(4), 587–604.

Fylan, F., & Clarke, J. (2006). Violence reduction strategy. York: Her Majesty’s Prison Full Sutton.

Gallagher, C. A., Wilson, D. B., Hirschfield, P., Coggeshall, M. B., & MacKenzie, D. L. (1999). A

quantitative review of the effects of sex offender treatment on sexual reoffending. Corrections

Management Quarterly, 3, 19–29.

Garrett, M., & Lerman, M. (2007). CBT for psychosis for long-term inpatients with a forensic his-

tory. Psychiatric Services, 58(5), 712–713.

Geffner, R. A., & Rosenbaum, A. (2001). Domestic violence offenders: Treatment and intervention

standards. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 5(2), 1–9.

Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (1997). Correctional treatment: Accomplishments and realities. In

P. Van Voorhis, M. Braswell, & D. Lester (Eds.), Correctional counseling and rehabilitation

(3rd ed., pp. 271–279). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. R. (1979). Effective correctional treatment: Bibliotherapy for cynics.

Crime and Delinquency, 25, 463–489.

Gondolf, E. W. (2002). Batterer treatment systems: Issues, outcomes, and recommendations.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Green, C., & Babcock, J. (2001, July). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of

domestic violence treatment. Paper presented at the 7th International Family Violence Research

Conference, University of New Hampshire, Portsmouth.

Gregory, C., & Erez, E. (2002). The effects of batterer intervention programs: The battered women’s

perspective. Violence Against Women, 8(2), 206–232.

Griffith, J. D., Hiller, M. L., Knight, K., & Simpson, D. D. (1999). A cost-effectiveness analysis of

in-prison therapeutic community treatment and risk classification. The Prison Journal, 79(3),

352–368.

Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Hallberg, A. M., Lebow, B., Snitz, E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical

versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19–30.

Hall, G. C. N. (1995). Sexual offender recidivism revisited: A meta-analysis of recent treatment stud-

ies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(5), 802–809.

Hammett, T. M., Roberts, C., & Kennedy, S. (2001). Health-related issues in prisoner reentry.

Crime & Delinquency, 47, 390–410.

Hanson, R. K. (1997). The development of a brief actuarial risk scale for sexual offense recidivism.

User report 97-04. Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.

Hanson, R. K. (2000). What is so special about relapse prevention? In D. R. Laws, S. M. Hudson,

& T. Ward (Eds.), Remaking relapse prevention with sex offenders (pp. 27–38). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., Helmus, L., & Hodgson, S. (2009). A meta-analysis of the effective-

ness of treatment for sexual offenders: Risk, need, and responsivity. Corrections research user

report no. 2009-01. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada.

Hanson, R. K., & Bussiere, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender

recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348–362.

Hanson, R. K., Gordon, A., Harris, A. J. R., Marques, J. K., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V. L., et al.

(2002). First report of the Collaborative Outcome Project on the effectiveness of psychological

treatment for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 159–194.

64 Rethinking Corrections

Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2004). Predictors of sexual recidivism: An updated meta-

analysis. User report 2004-02. Ottawa: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.

Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessment for sex offenders: A comparison

of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119–136.

Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist–revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Hare, R. D. (1998). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. New

York: Guilford.

Hare, R. D. (1999). Psychopathy as a risk factor for violence. Psychiatric Quarterly, 70(3), 181–197.

Hare, R. D., Forth, A., & Kosson, D. S. (1994). The Psychopathy Checklist: Youth version.

Vancouver: University of British Columbia, Department of Psychology.

Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Quinsey, V. L., Lalumiere, M. L., Boer, D., & Lang, C. (2003). A multisite

comparison of actuarial risk instruments for sex offenders. Psychological Assessment, 15, 413–425.

Hart, S. D., Kropp, P. R., Laws, D. R., Klaver, J., Logan, C., & Watt, K. A. (2003). The Risk for

Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP): Structured professional guidelines for assessing risk of sexual

violence. Vancouver: The British Columbia Institute Against Family Violence.

Heilbrun, K., DeMatteo, D., Fretz, R., Erickson, J., Yasuhara, K., & Anumba, N. (2008). How

“specific” are gender-specific rehabilitation needs? An empirical analysis. Criminal Justice and

Behavior, 35, 1382–1397.

Henggeler, S. W. (1996). Treatment of juvenile offenders: We have the knowledge. Journal of Family

Psychology, 10, 137–141.

Henggeler, S. W., Melton, G. B., & Smith, L. A. (1992). Family preservation using multisystemic

therapy: An effective alternative to incarcerating serious juvenile offenders. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 953–961.

Henggeler, S. W., Rodick, J. D., Borduin, C. M., Hanson, C. L., Watson, S. M., & Urey, J. R.

(1986). Multi-systemic treatment of juvenile offenders: Effects on adolescent behavior and fam-

ily interaction. Developmental Psychology, 22, 132–141.

Henning, K., & Frueh, B. C. (1996). Cognitive behavioral treatment of incarcerated offenders: An

evaluation of the Vermont Department of Corrections cognitive self-change program. Criminal

Justice and Behavior, 23, 523–541.

Hodel, B., & West, A. (2003). A cognitive training for mentally ill offenders with treatment-resistant

schizophrenia. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 14(3), 554–568.

Hodges, K. (1994). Manual for the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale. Ypsilanti:

Eastern Michigan University, Department of Psychology.

Hodges, K. (1999). Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). In M. F. Maruish

(Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment (2nd ed.,

pp. 631–660). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hoge, R. D. (2002). Standardized instruments for assessing risk and need in youthful offenders.

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(4), 380–396.

Hoge, R. D., & Andrews, D. A. (2001). The Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory

(YLS/CMI): Intake manual and item scoring key. Ottawa: Carleton University.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2001). Standards for batterer treatment programs: How can research

inform our decisions? Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 5(2), 165–180.

Janus, E. S., & Prentky, R. A. (2003). The forensic use of actuarial risk assessment with sex offenders:

Accuracy, admissibility and accountability. American Criminal Law Review, 40, 1443–1449.

65Chapter 3 Treatment of Offender Populations

Jenson, J. M., & Howard, M. O. (1998). Youth crime, public policy, and practice in the juvenile

justice system: Recent trends and needed reforms. Social Work, 43, 324–334.

Kazdin, A. E. (1987). Treatment of antisocial behavior in children: Current status and future direc-

tions. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 187–203.

Koons, B. A., Burrow, J. D., Morash, M., & Bynum, T. (1997). Expert and offender perceptions

of program elements linked to successful outcomes for incarcerated women. Crime &

Delinquency, 43, 512–532.

Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., Webster, C., & Eaves, D. (1999). Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide:

User’s manual. Vancouver: Multi-Health Systems.

Laberge, D., & Morin, D. (1995). The overuse of criminal justice dispositions: Failures of diver-

sionary policies in the management of mental health problems. International Journal of Law

and Psychiatry, 18, 389–414.

Lamb, H. R., & Weinberger, L. E. (1998). Persons with severe mental illness in jails and prisons: A

review. Psychiatric Services, 49, 483–492.

Lamb, H. R., & Weinberger, L. E. (2008). Mental health courts as a way to provide treatment to violent

persons with severe mental illness. Journal of the American Medical Association, 300(6), 722–724.

Landenberger, N. A., & Lipsey, M. W. (2005). The positive effects of cognitive–behavioral pro-

grams for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. Journal of

Experimental Criminology, 1, 451–476.

Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC:

Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Larson, J. D. (1990). Cognitive–behavioral therapy with delinquent adolescents: A cooperative

approach with the juvenile court. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation,

16, 47–64.

Lattimore, P. K., Visher, C. A., & Linster, R. L. (1995). Predicting rearrest for violence among seri-

ous youthful offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32, 54–83.

Lees, J., Manning, N., & Rawlings, B. (1999). Therapeutic community effectiveness. A systemic

international review of therapeutic community treatment for people with personality disorders

and mentally disordered offenders. CRD report 17. York: NHS Centre for Reviews and

Dissemination, University of York.

Levenson, J. S. (2003). Policy interventions designed to combat sexual violence: Community notifi-

cation and civil commitment. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 12, 17–52.

Levesque, D. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1998, July). Does treatment reduce recidivism in men who batter?

A meta-analytic evaluation of treatment outcome. Paper presented at Program Evaluation and

Family Violence Research: An International Conference, Durham, NH.

Lewis, D. O., Yeager, C. A., Lovely, R., Stein, A., & Cobham-Portorreal, C. S. (1994). A clinical

follow-up of delinquent males: Ignored variables, unmet needs, and the perpetuation of vio-

lence. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 33, 518–528.

Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. New

York: Guilford.

Linhorst, D. M., Knight, K., Johnston, J. S., & Trickey, M. (2001). Situational influences on the

implementation of a prison-based therapeutic community. The Prison Journal, 81, 436–453.

66 Rethinking Corrections

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1998). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders: A syn-

thesis of research. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offend-

ers: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 313–345). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Logan, C. H. (1972). Evaluation research in crime and delinquency: A reappraisal. Journal of

Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 63, 378–387.

Long, C. G., Webster, P., Waine, J., Motala, J., & Hollin, C. (2008). Usefulness of the CANFOR-S

for measuring needs among mentally disordered offenders resident in medium or low secure hos-

pital service in the UK: A pilot evaluation. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 18, 39–48.

Looman, J., Abracen, J., & Nicholaichuk, T. P. (2000). Recidivism among treated sexual offenders

and matched controls: Data from the Regional Treatment Centre (Ontario). Journal of

Interpersonal Violence, 15, 279–290.

Looman, J., Dickie, I., & Abracen, J. (2005). Responsivity issues in the treatment of sexual offend-

ers. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6(4), 330–353.

Losel, F. (1998). Treatment and management of psychopaths. In D. J. Cooke, A. E. Forth, & R. D.

Hare (Eds.), Psychopathy: Theory, research, and implications for society (pp. 303–354).

Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

Loucks, A., & Zamble, E. (2000). Predictors of criminal behavior and prison misconduct in serious

female offenders. Empirical and Applied Criminal Justice Review, 1, 1–47.

Marshall, W. L., Barbaree, H. E., & Eccles, A. (1991). Early onset and deviant sexuality in child

molesters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 323–336.

Marshall, W. L., Eccles, A., & Barbaree, H. E. (1993). A three-tiered approach to the rehabilitation

of incarcerated sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 11, 441–455.

Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public

Interest, 35, 22–54.

McCorkle, R. C. (1993). Research note: Punish and rehabilitate? Public attitudes toward six com-

mon crimes. Crime & Delinquency, 39(2), 240–252.

McGrath, R. J., Cumming, G., Livingston, J. A., & Hoke, S. E. (2003). Outcome of a treatment program

for adult sex offenders: From prison to community. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(1), 3–17.

McGrath, R. J., Hoke, S. E., & Vojtisek, J. E. (1998). Cognitive–behavioral treatment of sex offend-

ers: A treatment comparison and long-term follow-up study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25,

203–225.

McNeil, D. E., & Binder, R. L. (2007). Effectiveness of a mental health court in reducing criminal

recidivism and violence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 164, 1395–1403.

Moffitt, T. E., Krueger, R. F., Caspi, A., & Fagan, J. (2000). Partner abuse and general crime: How

are they the same? How are they different? Criminology, 38, 199–232.

Monster, M., & Micucci, A. (2005). Meeting rehabilitative needs at a Canadian women’s correc-

tional centre. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 168–185.

Morash, M., Bynum, T. S., & Koons, B. A. (1998). Women offenders: Programming, needs and

promising approaches. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Research in Brief.

Morrissey, J., Meyer, P., & Cuddeback, G. (2007). Extending assertive community treatment to

criminal justice settings: Origins, current evidence, and future directions. Community Mental

Health Journal, 43(5), 527–544.

67Chapter 3 Treatment of Offender Populations

Motiuk, L. L., & Serin, R. (1998). Situating risk assessment in the reintegration potential frame-

work. Forum on Corrections Research, 10(1), 19–22.

Mullen, P. E. (2007). Dangerous and severe personality disorder and in need of treatment. The

British Journal of Psychiatry, 192, s3–s7.

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2003). Cost of intimate partner violence against

women in the United States. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nicholaichuk, T., Gordon, A., Deqiang, G., & Wong, S. (2000). Outcome of an institutional sexual

offender treatment program: A comparison between treated and matched untreated offenders.

Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 12, 139–154.

Nichols, H. R., & Molinder, I. (1984). The Multiphasic Sex Inventory manual. Fircrest, WA:

Nichols & Molinder.

Office of Justice Programs. (2004). Reentry. Washington, DC: Author.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1996). Combating violence and delinquency:

The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan. Washington, DC: Author.

Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. New

York: Springer-Verlag.

Petrunik, M. G. (2002). Managing unacceptable risk: Sex offenders, community response, and social

policy in the United States and Canada. International Journal of Offender Therapy &

Comparative Criminology, 46, 483–511.

Poels, V. (2007). Risk assessment of recidivism of violent and sexual female offenders. Psychology,

Psychiatry, & Law, 14, 227–250.

Polaschek, D. L. L., & Dixon, B. G. (2001). The Violence Prevention Project: The development and

evaluation of a treatment programme for violent offenders. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 7, 1–27.

Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising

and managing risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (2006). Violent offenders: Appraising

and managing risk (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Redondo, S., Sanchez-Meca, J., & Garrido, V. (1999). The influence of treatment programmes on

the recidivism of juvenile and adult offenders: A European meta-analytic review. Psychology,

Crime, & Law, 5, 251–278.

Rice, M. E., Harris, G. T., & Cormier, C. A. (1992). An evaluation of a maximum security thera-

peutic community for psychopaths and other mentally disordered offenders. Law and Human

Behavior, 16, 399–412.

Saum, C. A., O’Connell, D. J., Martin, S. S., Hiller, M. L., Bacon, G. A., & Simpson, D. D. (2007).

Tempest in a TC: Changing treatment providers for in-prison therapeutic communities.

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1216–1234.

Scalora, M. J., & Garbin, C. (2003). A multivariate analysis of sex offender recidivism. International

Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47(3), 309–323.

Schoenwald, S. K., Ward, D. M., Henggeler, S. W., Pickrel, S. G., & Patel, H. (1996).

Multisystemic therapy treatment of substance abusing or dependent adolescent offenders:

Costs of reducing incarceration, inpatient, and residential treatment. Journal of Child and

Family Studies, 5, 431–444.

Scott, K. L. (2004). Predictors of change among male batterers: Application of theories and review

of empirical findings. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5(3), 260–284.

68 Rethinking Corrections

Serin, R. C., & Brown, S. (1996). Strategies for enhancing the treatment of violent offenders. Forum

of Corrections Research, 8, 45–48.

Serin, R. C., & Brown, S. (1997). Treatment programs for offenders with violent histories: A

national survey. Forum of Corrections Research, 9, 35–38.

Serin, R. C., & Kennedy, S. (1997). Treatment readiness and responsivity: Contributing to effective

correctional programming. Ottawa: Correctional Services of Canada.

Shadish, W. R., Montgomery, L. M., Wilson, P., Wilson, M. R., Bright, I., & Okwumabua, T.

(1993). Effects of family and marital psychotherapies: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 61, 991–1002.

Sickmund, M., Snyder, H. N., & Poe-Yamagata, E. (1997). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1997

update on violence. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Slate, R. N., & Johnson, W. W. (2008). Criminalization of mental illness. Durham, NC: Carolina

Academic Press.

Snyder, H. (2008). Juvenile arrests 2006. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Retrieved April 27, 2009, from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/221338.pdf

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Conflict

Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family

Issues, 17(3), 283–316.

Swanson, J., Swartz, M., van Dorn, R., Elbogen, E., Wagner, R., Rosenheck, R., et al. (2006). A national

study of violent behavior in persons with schizophrenia. Archives of General Psychiatry, 63, 490–499.

Tarolla, S. M., Wagner, E. F., Rabinowitz, J., & Tubman, J. G. (2002). Understanding and treating

juvenile offenders: A review of current knowledge and future directions. Aggression and Violent

Behavior, 7, 125–143.

Tate, D. C., Reppucci, N. D., & Mulvey, E. P. (1995). Violent juvenile delinquents: Treatment effec-

tiveness and implications for future action. American Psychologist, 50(9), 777–781.

Taxman, F. S. (2004). The offender and reentry: Supporting active participation in reintegration.

Federal Probation, 68(2), 31–35.

Taxman, F. S., Young, D., & Byrne, J. (2004). Transforming offender reentry into public safety:

Lessons from OJP’s Reentry Partnership Initiative. Justice Policy and Research, 5(2), 101–128.

Taylor, B. G., Davis, R. C., & Maxwell, C. D. (2001). The effects of a group batterer treatment pro-

gram in Brooklyn. Justice Quarterly, 18, 170–201.

Thomas, S. D. M., Harty, M. A., Parrott, J., McCrone, P., Slade, M., & Thornicroft, G. (2003).

CANFOR: Camberwell Assessment of Need—Forensic version. London: Gaskell.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against

women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice.

Valliant, P. M., Furac, C. J., & Antonowicz, D. H. (1994). Attitudes toward sex offenders by female

undergraduate university students enrolled in a psychology program. Social Behavior and

Personality, 22(2), 105–110.

Ward, T., Mann, R. E., & Gannon, T. A. (2007). The good lives model of offender rehabilitation:

Clinical implications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 87–107.

Ward, T., Vess, J., & Collie, R. M. (2006). Risk management or goods promotion: The relationship

between approach and avoidance goals in treatment of sex offenders. Aggression and Violent

Behavior, 11(4), 378–393.

69Chapter 3 Treatment of Offender Populations

Webster, C., Douglas, D., Eaves, D., & Hart, S. (1997). HCR-20. Assessing risk for violence

(Version 2). Vancouver: Simon Fraser University and Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission

of British Columbia.

Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: The

Psychological Corporation and Harcourt Brace.

Whitaker, D. J., Morrison, S., Lindquist, C., Hawkins, S. R., O’Neil, J. A., Nesius, A. M., et al.

(2006). A critical review of interventions for the primary prevention of perpetration of partner

violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 151–166.

Wilson, R. J., Huculak, B., & McWhinnie, A. (2002). Restorative justice innovations in Canada.

Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 20(4), 363–380.

Wolfe, D. A., & Feiring, C. (2000). Dating violence through the lens of adolescent romantic rela-

tionships. Child Maltreatment, 5, 360–363.

Wong, S. C. P., & Gordon, A. (2006). The validity and reliability of the Violence Risk Scale: A treat-

ment friendly violence risk assessment tool. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12, 279–309.

Wong, S. C. P., Gordon, A., & Gu, D. (2007). Assessment and treatment of violence-prone forensic

clients: An integrated approach. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190(49), s66–74.

Wong, S. C. P., Van der Veen, S., Leis, T., Parrish, H., Gu, D., Usher Liber, E., et al. (2005).

Reintegrating seriously violent and personality disordered offenders from a super-maximum

security institution into the general offender population. International Journal of Offender

Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49(4), 362–375.

Wormith, J., Althouse, R., Simpson, M., Reitzel, L., Fagan, T., & Morgan, R. (2007). The rehabil-

itation and integration of offenders: The current landscape and some future directions for cor-

rectional psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 879–892.

70 Rethinking Corrections

Royal_B 36070 3

Navigation menu

Versions of this User Manual:

Views

Navigation