Changing risk factors that impact recidivism: In search of mechanisms of change.

Abstract

The present study examined whether treatment change among offenders under community supervision would predict reductions in recidivism. The intervention program, based on cognitive-behavioral principles, focused on changing antisocial attitudes. Compared to a matched control group, the likelihood of reduced recidivism was 57% for the binary outcome and 70% for the multiple count outcome, after controlling for past program participation, propensity score, and days of opportunity to offend. The within-person pre-/postchange scores showed less promise in predicting recidivism. Only changes with a single antisocial associate measure, which were not central to the treatment program, predicted future recidivism. Caution must be used in the idiographic assessment of dynamic risk and treatment change.

Violent Offenders’ Within-Treatment Change in Anger, Criminal Attitudes, and Violence Risk: Associations with Violent Recidivism

“…Nevertheless, the question of linking relevant treatment gains to reduced violent recidivism was not supported (Kroner & Yessine, 2013). What makes these results surprising is that the variables measured in this study met theoretical and evidenced-based standards for effective violence intervention (Kroner & Yessine, 2013). Both procriminal attitudes and anger-related variables have shown relationships with violent recidivism and both can be altered with intervention.…”

“…In these analyses, pre-treatment scores on each construct were controlled, as it has been argued that the amount to which an offender can change on a dynamic measure is restricted by his pre-treatment score (Olver et al, 2014). Nevertheless, the question of linking relevant treatment gains to reduced violent recidivism was not supported (Kroner & Yessine, 2013). What makes these results surprising is that the variables measured in this study met theoretical and evidenced-based standards for effective violence intervention (Kroner & Yessine, 2013).…”

“…One potential explanation for the current findings is that improvement in antisocial attitudes and anger-related variables may not be sufficient for the cessation of violence (Kroner & Yessine, 2013). Violence is multiply determined; thus desistance from violence might require improvements in a greater number of criminogenic domains (Kroner & Yessine, 2013).…”

“…The detailed examination of within-treatment change has been proposed; that is, examining an individual's proximal change within treatment, rather than measuring a time-delayed outcome such as recidivism (Beggs, 2010;Hanson, 1997;Jones & Tatman, n.d.). Moving from a between-groups analysis to a within-person analysis is essential in understanding mechanisms of change, and might provide a more reliable approach of gauging treatment efficacy (Kroner & Yessine, 2013;. Evaluating change, however, requires the use of dynamic variables, which are capable of changing (Andrews & Bonta, 2010).…”

Predicting risk of violence through a self-appraisal questionnaire

“…On the one hand, the use of standardized tools has been instigated and continues to thrive because many studies have demonstrated that clinicians' judgments alone led to many erroneous decisions and unacceptably high false positives . On the other hand, the use of standardized tools improves the predictive accuracy of recidivism, violent behavior, sexual offense, and gender violence (Kroner & Yessine, 2013;Loza & Green, 2003;Pérez, Martínez, & Redondo, 2009). …”