Evaluation of the Implementation of a Risk-Need-Responsivity Service in Community Supervision in Sweden

Abstract

The effective use of the core treatment principles from the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model has the potential to reduce criminal recidivism significantly. A pilot trial of the RNR-based model Krimstics in the Swedish probation service showed increased RNR adherence but no effects on recidivism. The subsequent implementation of Krimstics involved the training and clinical support of more than 700 probation officers working with community supervision. In parallel, an implementation evaluation examining RNR adherence was undertaken, collecting and coding audio-recorded supervision sessions and case file data. Findings showed that Krimstics-trained probation officers ( N = 96) used cognitive behavioral therapy-based techniques in supervision sessions while demonstrating moderate-to-high levels of relationship building skills. However, adherence to the risk principle was lacking and key cognitive behavioral techniques showed poor quality. Although Krimstics has increased RNR adherence in a Swedish context, challenges with implementing theory into practice may obscure the assessment of the service’s effectiveness.

Strengths and weaknesses of the psychology of criminal conduct: Implications for the conceptualisation, assessment and treatment of antisocial personality pattern

“…in Sweden improved RNR adherence but had no impact on recidivism (Starfelt Sutton et al, 2021). Embedded within this study is the assumption that dynamic risk factors are amendable to change and that such change would reduce recidivism.…”

“…This is problematic, as treatment outcome studies, in particular, use dynamic risk factors to guide intervention, not just to predict likelihood of reoffending. For example, Starfelt Sutton and colleagues found that training probation staff in an RNR based model (Krimstics) in Sweden improved RNR adherence but had no impact on recidivism (Starfelt Sutton et al., 2021). Embedded within this study is the assumption that dynamic risk factors are amendable to change and that such change would reduce recidivism.…”

Evaluation of the Predictive Validity of a Risk-Need-Responsivity Assessment Tool (RNR-A) in the Swedish Prison and Probation Service

“…This avenue for future systematic evaluation is called for given the challenges typically identified in "real world" applications of the RNR principles: valid and reliable risk assessment instrumentsalthough administered appropriatelydo not necessarily inform sentence planning or case management decision-making (e.g., Viljoen et al, 2018). A need to strengthen adherence to the risk principle in the Swedish probation and parole services by matching risk with supervision intensity has been noted previously (Starfelt Sutton et al, 2021). When RNR assessment is implemented appropriately in case management, high-risk offenders in particular show reductions in recidivism (Luong & Wormith, 2011).…”

Emotion, Identity, and Rehabilitation: Towards an Enactivist Correctional Practice Framework

“…Participation in such prison-based rehabilitation programmes is usually encouraged directly (i.e., by court order) or indirectly (i.e., by offering reduced sentences for successful completion). Community-based interventions which take place outside of the prison environment have been suggested to show more consistently positive results for intervention (Harkins et al, 2012;Schmucker & Lösel, 2015), and might involve engagement with skill-based or educational workshops in the general community in collaboration with probation staff (Starfelt Sutton et al, 2021). Prison-based treatment environments pose unique constraints on the ways that treatment is delivered (e.g., by imposing limits on available resources and freedom of movement) which intervention models should be sensitive to in order to maximise their potential utility.…”

“…Prison-based treatment environments pose unique constraints on the ways that treatment is delivered (e.g., by imposing limits on available resources and freedom of movement) which intervention models should be sensitive to in order to maximise their potential utility. Similarly, when intervention is delivered in the community, it is necessary for practitioners at each stage of the intervention process to be cognizant of the requirements of intervention, and for these requirements to be accessible and easily understood for people from different professional backgrounds (such as by using specialist treatment materials for probation staff; Starfelt Sutton et al, 2021).…”