Grubin, D. & Wingate, S. (1996) Sexual offence recidivism: Prediction versus understanding. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 6, 349–359.
Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (1999). Static 99: Improving the predictive accuracy of actuarial risk assessments for sex offenders. Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Hare, R. D. (1980). A research scale for the assessment of psychopathy in criminal populations. Personality and Individual Differences, 1, 111–119.
Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems.
Hart, S. D., Hare, R. D., & Forth, A. E. (1994). Psychopathy as a risk marker for violence: Development and validation of a screening version of the Revised Psychopathy Checklist. In J. Monahan & J. Steadman (Eds.), Violence and mental disorder: Developments in risk assessment (pp. 81–98). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hatcher, R. M. (2009). An investigation of attrition from community-based offending behaviour programmes (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/display/105085
Hatcher, R. M., McGuire, J., Bilby, C. A. L., Palmer, E. J., & Hollin, C. R. (2012). Methodological considerations in the evaluation of offender interventions: The problem of attrition. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 447–464.
Hatcher, R. M., McGuire, J., Palmer, E. J., & Hollin, C. R. (2011). Dosage, appropriateness of selection, and reconviction amongst completers and non-completers of community based offender interventions in England and Wales. Paper presented at the North American Correctional and Criminal Justice Psychology Conference, Sheraton Centre, Toronto.
Hollin, C. R. (1995). The meaning and implications of “programme integrity”. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending: Guidelines from research and practice (pp 195–208). Chichester: Wiley.
Hollin, C. R. (2006). Offending behaviour programmes and contention: Evidence-based practice, manuals, and programme evaluation. In C. R. Hollin & E. J. Palmer (Eds.), Offending behaviour programmes: Development, application, and controversies. (pp. 33–67). Chichester: Wiley.
Hollin, C. R., McGuire, J., Palmer, E. J., Bilby, C., Hatcher, R., & Holmes, A. (2002). Introducing Pathfinder programmes into the Probation Service: An interim report. Home Office Research Study, 247. London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
Hollin, C. R., & Palmer, E. J. (2003). Level of Service Inventory-Revised profiles of violent and nonviolent prisoners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1075–1086.
Hollin, C. R., & Palmer, E. J. (2006). Offending behaviour programmes: Controversies and resolutions. In C. R. Hollin & E. J. Palmer (Eds.), Offending behaviour programmes: Development, application, and controversies (pp. 247–278). Chichester: Wiley.
Hollin, C. R., Palmer, E. J., McGuire, J. Hounsome, J., Hatcher, R., & Bilby, C. (2004). An evaluation of Pathfinder Programmes in the Probation Service. Unpublished research report to the Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics Directorate.
Hollin, C. R., Palmer, E. J., McGuire, J., Hounsome, J., Hatcher, R., & Bilby, C. (2008). Cognitive skills offending behaviour programmes in the community: A reconviction analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 269–283.
Hollis, V. (2007). Reconviction analysis of programme data using Interim Accredited Programmes Software (IAPS). London: National Offender Management Service.
House of Commons. (2006). Report of the Zahid Mubarek Inquiry. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.
Howard, P. (2015a). OGRS 4: the revised Offender Group Reconviction Scale. In R. Moore (Ed.), A compendium of research and analysis on the Offender Assessment System (OASys). Ministry of Justice Analytical Series (pp. 152–178). London: National Offender Management Service.
Howard, P. (2015b). OGP2 and OVP2: the revised OASys predictors. In R. Moore (Ed.), A compendium of research and analysis on the Offender Assessment System (OASys). Ministry of Justice Analytical Series. London: National Offender Management Service.
Howard, P., Clark, D., & Garnham, N. (2006). An evaluation of the Offender Assessment System in three pilots 1999–2001. London: Home Office.
Howard, P., Francis, B., Soothill, K., & Humphreys, L. (2009). OGRS3: The revised Offender Group Reconviction Scale. Ministry of Justice Research Summary 07/09. London, Ministry of Justice.
Howe, E. (1994). Judged person dangerousness as weighted averaging. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1270–1290.
Howells, K., & Hollin, C. R. (1989). Clinical approaches to violence. Chichester: Wiley.
Joseph, N. & Benefield, N. (2012). A joint offender personality disorder pathway strategy: An outline summary. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 22, 210–217.
HM Prison and Probation Service. (2015). Offending behaviour programmes (OBPs). Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov.uk/offenders/before-after-release/obp
Klassen, C. (1999). Predicting aggression in psychiatric inpatients using 10 historical factors: Validating the “H” of the HCR-20. Unpublished thesis. Vancouver: Simon Fraser University.
Limandri, B., & Sheridan, D. (1995). Prediction of interpersonal violence: Fact or fiction. In J. C. Campbell (Ed.), Assessing dangerousness: Violence by sexual offenders, batterers, and child abusers (pp. 1–19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Litwack, T. R. (2001). Actuarial versus clinical assessments of dangerousness. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 7, 409–443.
McGuire, J. (2000). Think First: Programme manual. London: National Probation Service.
McGuire, J., & Hatcher, R. (2001). Offence focused problem solving: Preliminary evaluation of a cognitive skills program. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 28, 564–587.
McMurran, M., & Theodosi, E. (2007). Is treatment non-completion associated with increased reconviction over no treatment? Psychology, Crime and Law, 13, 333–344.
Milner, J. S., & Campbell, J. C. (1995) Prediction issues for practitioners. In J. Campbell (Ed.), Assessing dangerousness: Violence by sexual offenders, batterers, and child abusers (pp. 41–67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Ministry of Justice. (2010a). Offender management caseload statistics 2009. Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin. London: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice. (2010b). National Offender Management Service: Annual report and accounts 2009–2010. London: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice. (2017). Restricted patient statistics. London: Ministry of Justice.
Monahan, J. (1981). The clinical prediction of violence. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
Moore, R. (2006) The Offender Assessment System (OASys) in England and Wales. Probation in Europe, 37, 12–13.
Moore, R. (2007). Adult offenders’ perceptions of their underlying problems: Findings from the OASys self-assessment questionnaire. Home Office Research Findings 284. London: Home Office.
Morana, H. C. P., Arboleda-Flόrez, J., & Câmara, F. P. (2005). Identifying the cut-off score for the PCL-R scale (psychopathy checklist-revised) in a Brazilian forensic population. Forensic Science International, 147, 1–8.
National Offender Management Service. (2006a). The NOMS Offender Management Model. London: Home Office.
Office for National Statistics. (2017). Crime in England and Wales: Year ending December 2016. Statistical bulletin. London :Office for National Statistics.
Palmer, E. J., McGuire, J., Hatcher, R. M., Hounsome, J., Bilby, C. A. L., & Hollin, C. R. (2008). The importance of appropriate allocation to offending behaviour programmes. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52, 206–221.
Palmer, E. J., McGuire, J., Hatcher, R. M., Hounsome, J., Bilby, C. A. L., & Hollin, C. R. (2009). Allocation to offending behavior programmes in the English and Welsh Probation Service. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 909–922.
Palmer, E. J., McGuire, J., Hounsome, J. C., Hatcher, R. M., Bilby, C. A. L., & Hollin, C. R. (2007). Offending behaviour programmes within the community: The effect
s on reconviction of three programmes with adult male offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 251–264.
Pelissier, B., Camp, S. D., & Motivans, M. (2003). Staying in treatment: How much difference is there from prison to prison? Psychology of Additive Behaviours, 17, 134–141.
Povey, D., Coleman, K., Kaiza, P. & Roe, S. (2009). Homicides, firearm offences and intimate violence 2007/08 (Supplementary Volume 2 to Crime in England and Wales 2007/08). Home Office Statistical Bulletin 02/09. London: Home Office
Quinsey, L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing the risk. Washington D.C: American Psychological Association.
Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Lalumière, M. L. (1993). Assessing treatment efficacy in outcome studies of sex offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8, 512–523.
Raynor, P. (2007). Risk and need assessment in British probation: The contribution of LSI-R. Psychology, Crime and Law, 13, 125–138.
Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1995). Violent recidivism: Assessing predictive validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 737–748.
Roberts, C. (2004). An early evaluation of a cognitive offending behaviour programme (Think First) in probation areas. Vista: Perspectives on Probation, 8, 130–136.
Roberts, C., Burnett, R., Kirby, A., & Hamill, H. (1996). A system for evaluating probation practice. Probation Studies Unit Report 1. Oxford: University of Oxford Centre for Criminological Research.
Ross, R. R., & Fabiano, E. A. (1985). Reasoning and Rehabilitation: Manual. Ottawa: AIR Training & Associates.
Schlager, M. D., & Simourd, D. J. (2007). Validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised among African American and Hispanic male offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 545–554.
Serin, R. C. (1991). Psychopathy and violence in criminals. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 423–431.
Serin, R. C., Peters, R., & Barbaree, H. (1990). Predictors of psychopathy and release outcomes in a criminal population. Psychological Assessment, 2, 419–422.
Shields, I. W. (1993). The use of the Young Offender Level of Service Inventory (YO-LSI) with adolescents. IARCA Journal, 5, 10–26.
Shields, I. W., & Simourd, D. J. (1991). Predicting predatory behaviour in a population of incarcerated young offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18, 180–194.
Simourd, D. J., & Malcolm, P. B. (1998). Reliability and validity of the Level of Service Inventory- revised among federally incarcerated sex offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 261–274.
Steele, R. (2002a). Psychometric features of Think First participants’ pre and post programme. Research and Information Section, National Probation Service, Merseyside.
Steele, R. (2002b). Reconviction of offenders on Think First. Research and Information Section, National Probation Service, Merseyside.
Strand, S., Belfrage, H., Fransson, G., & Levander, S. (1999) Clinical and risk management factors in risk prediction of mentally disordered offenders – more important than historical data. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 4, 67–76.
Taylor, R. (1999). Predicting reconvictions for sexual and violent offences using the revised Offender Group Reconviction Scale. Home Office Research Findings 104. London: Home Office.
Thornton, D. (1997). Structured anchored clinical judgement. Paper presented at the NOTA Annual conference, Southampton.
Thornton, D. (2002). Constructing and testing a framework for dynamic risk assessment. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 139–153.
Thornton, D., Mann, R., Webster, S., Blud, L., Travers, R., Friendship, C., & Erikson, M. (2003). Distinguishing and combining risks for sexual and violent recidivism. In R. A. Prentky, E. S. Janus, & M. C. Seto (Eds.), Sexually coercive behavior: Understanding and management (pp. 225–235). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 225–235. New York: New York Academy of Sciences
Tong, L. S. J., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). How effective is the “Reasoning and Rehabilitation” programme in reducing reoffending? A meta-analysis of evaluations in four countries. Psychology, Crime and Law, 12, 3–24.
Travers, R., Wakeling, H. C., Mann, R. E., & Hollin, C. R. (2013). Reconviction following a cognitive skills intervention: An alternative quasi-experimental methodology. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18, 48–65.
Turner, R. (2006). Developing understanding of accredited programmes completions: The role of case- management and barriers to completion. Unpublished report, West Yorkshire Probation Area.
Turner, R. (2008). A qualitative evaluation of the new cognitive skills programme pilots (second phase). RDT Consultancy.
van Voorhis, P., Spruance, L. M., Ritchey, P. N., Listwan, S. J., & Seabrook, R. (2004). The Georgia cognitive skills experiment: A replication of reasoning and rehabilitation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 282–305.
Webster, S. D., Mann, R. E., Carter, A. J., Long, J., Milner, R. J., O’Brienn, M., Wakeling, H. C., & Ray, N. L. (2006). Inter-rater reliability of dynamic risk assessment with sexual offenders. Psychology, Crime and Law, 12, 439–452.
Wilson, G. T. (1996). Manual-based treatments: The clinical application of research findings. Behaviour, Research and Therapy, 34, 295–314.
Wintrup, A. (1996) Assessing risk of violence in mentally disordered offenders with the HCR-20. Vancouver: Simon Fraser University.
19 Treating Dangerous Offenders
LEIGH HARKINS, JAYSON WARE AND RUTH MANN
CHAPTER OUTLINE
19.1 INTRODUCTION
19.2 TYPES OF DANGEROUS OFFENDERS TYPICALLY TREATED IN A CRIMINAL JUSTICE SETTING 19.2.1 Violent Offenders
19.2.2 Sexual Offenders
19.3 TREATMENT FRAMEWORKS 19.3.1 Treatment Frameworks for Violent Offenders
19.3.2 Frameworks for Treating Sexual Offenders
19.4 THE EVIDENCE BASE FOR THE TREATMENT OF DANGEROUS OFFENDERS 19.4.1 Violent Offenders
19.4.2 Treatment Effectiveness of Sex Offender Therapy
19.5 CONSIDERATIONS IN WORKING WITH DANGEROUS OFFENDERS 19.5.1 The Psychopathic Offender
19.5.2 Treatment Readiness
19.5.3 Therapeutic Climate
19.5.4 Treatment Context
19.6 SUMMARY
LEARNING OUTCOMES
BY THE END OF THIS CHAPTER, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO:
Understand dangerous offenders and why treatment of dangerous offenders is important for reducing recidivism and ensuring community safety
Appreciate the principal treatment approaches used in working with dangerous offenders
Understand the implications of research findings in improving rehabilitation of dangerous offenders.
19.1 INTRODUCTION
The effective treatment of dangerous offenders has important implications for society in general and the offenders themselves. By definition, dangerous offenders pose a risk of serious harm to other people. The rates of reoffending for violent offenders tend to be higher, particularly when compared to other non-violent offenders (Motiuk & Belcourt, 1997). Canadian research published in 1999 showed approximately 40% of offenders incarcerated for violent offences returned to custody for a similar offence within two years (Dowden, Blanchette, & Serin, 1999). While, sexual recidivism rates are roughly in the range of 11% (Hanson & Morton- Bourgon, 2009) to 14% (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005), but it is acknowledged that this is likely an underestimate of the true rates of sexual reoffending (Ahlmeyer, Heil, McKee, & English, 2000).
PHOTO 19.1 The effective treatment of dangerous offenders has important implications for society in general and the offenders themselves.
Source: © FuzzBones/Shutterstock
Effective treatment hopefully means the prevention or reduction of future harm, but also that the offenders can move past their offending and on to more positive lives that are incompatible with offending. The aim of this chapter is briefly to describe:
the types of serious violent/sex offenders who can receive treat
ment;
the types of treatment typically undertaken with these offenders;
the evidence base for the effectiveness of such treatments; and
the factors that need to be considered when working with such dangerous offenders.
19.2 TYPES OF DANGEROUS OFFENDERS TYPICALLY TREATED IN A CRIMINAL JUSTICE SETTING
19.2.1 Violent Offenders
Individuals convicted of violent offences tend to make up a significant proportion of prison populations (around 50% in some jurisdictions; Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007). From a psychological (treatment) perspective, violence has been described as the intentional and malevolent physical injury of another (Blackburn, 1993). Violence can take many forms and there is a great deal of variability between offenders in terms of what may have caused and maintained their violent behaviours. Violent offenders may include those who have: assaulted their partner or children; been involved in a serious fight or fights; committed violence within a gang context; committed violence in course of a robbery; or killed someone.
There is a relatively small group of violent offenders who can be characterised as persistent, or repeat, offenders. These offenders have been termed “life-course-persistent offenders” (Moffit, 1993). These men tend to have more frequent, and more violent, offending than other offenders, as well as diverse and frequent non-violent offences (Polaschek, Collie, & Walkey, 2004). It is these serious violent offenders who are likely to commit further serious violent crimes unless appropriate treatment and management is provided. These offenders are most usually assessed on risk assessment measures as high risk of violent reoffending. It is these offenders that we attempt to target into the treatment irrespective of their offence type. We will now briefly describe different forms of violence.
Forensic Psychology Page 86
