108TH INTERNATIONALSEMINAR
VISITING
EXPERTS’
PAPERSVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENTOF RISK AND REINTEGRATION POTENTIAL
Don A. Andrews*
This paper has been updated from thenotes prepared for a session on Corrections
and Conditional Release at “Beyond
Prisons: Best Practices Along the Criminal
Justice Process,” an International
Symposium held on March 15-March 18,
1998, at Queen’s University, Kingston,Ontario, Canada. It is based on materials
prepared for the National Parole Board of
Canada in January of 1994 as well as
materials developed for NIC, the Vermont
Department of Corrections, the Ontario
Ministry of Community and Social
Services, the Ontario Ministry of the
Solicitor General and Correctional
Services, and Multnomah County Oregon.
I. INTRODUCTION
This paper is concerned in particularwith how current research, theory andopinion within the human and social
sciences may assist in decision making andpractice in relation to risk management
and risk reduction. In particular, howauthorities with an interest in community
corrections and conditional release mayassess the quality of each of the following:i) quality of understanding of intake
risk/needii) quality of understanding of anindividual’s criminality (individualized
assessment of risk/need)iii) quality of the correctional plan andin-prison eventsiv) quality of release plansv) quality of progress reportsvi) q u a l i t y o f a s s e s s m e n t s o f a n
offender’s behavior on conditional* Professor, Department of Psychology,Carleton
University,Canada

release.
An introduction to the power of current
knowledge and opinion regarding risk/need
and recidivism follows but obviously does
not imply that risk/need assessments andknowledge of program participation yield
perfect predictions of recidivism. To thecontrary, even the best of the empiricallybased knowledge of the value of preservice
risk assessments, reassessments of risk/
need, and program participation yieldpredictions that are less than perfect. Some
information, however, yields more accurate
predictions regarding the possibility of
future criminal conduct than does othertypes of information. For example;i) assessments of antisocial attitudes,
antisocial associates, psychopathic
personality, a history of antisocial
behavior, and problematic familialand educational/vocational
conditions are much stronger risk
factors than are assessments ofpersonal distress, low intelligence,
psychopathology or lower classorigins;ii) assessments of dynamic need factors
increase the predictability ofrecidivism over that provided by anassessment of criminal history;iii) assessments of current risk/needlevels are more predictive ofrecidivism than are intake risk/needassessments;iv) assessments of participation intreatment programs are morepredictive of effects on recidivism
than are assessments of the settings
established by the severity of official
punishment or of official processing
such as levels of custody or of261

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 54
supervision;assessments of the clinical andpsychological relevance ofcorrectional treatment participation
are more strongly predictive of effects
on recidivism than are assessmentsof undifferentiated treatment
participation;vi) assessments of changes under
supervision are predictive ofrecidivism over and above theaccuracy provided by prior risk/needassessments.
v)

II. THE GENERAL PERSONALITY
AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICALPERSPECTIVE ON CRIMINALCONDUCT: SOCIAL LEARNING
There are few scholars or practitioners
who would not agree that the occurrenceof criminal acts reflects the outcome ofparticular individuals being in a particularsituation at a particular time. The
immediate causes of criminal activity
reside in the immediate situation of action.
Situations, by virtue of objective featuresand prior personal experience, may varyin the temptations and controls
represented. In that immediate situation,a crime occurs when:i) An intention to behave that way isformed.
ii) The personal choice is made.
iii) Self-efficacy beliefs suggest that “I
am able to do it” and “it will payoff”.
iv) The situation is defined as one inwhich it is “OK” to behave that way.
v) The balance of signaled rewards
exceed the signaled costs of crime.
Understanding and managing risk ofrecidivism entails understanding:i) Individualized situational risk
factors, and:ii) Understanding those personal,
interpersonal and circumstantial risk
factors which shape particular262

intentions, choices, self-efficacy
beliefs, definitions of situations, or
shifts in signalled rewards and costs.
The research evidence regarding risk/need factors is now overwhelming in that
offenders may with some reliability andvalidity be grouped into lower and higher
risk categories. Over and over again in the
research literature, assessments of thefollowing factors yields predictions correctin from 65% to 80% of the cases:i) Antisocial attitudes, values, beliefs,
rationalizations, and cognitivee m o t i o n a l s t a t e s ( e . g . , a n g e r,
resentment, defiance);ii) Antisocial associates and relative
isolation from anticriminal others(interpersonal support for crime);iii) A history of antisocial behavior,evident from a young age, andinvolving a number and variety ofharmful acts in a variety ofsituations;iv) Aggressive, callous, and egocentric
personality;v) Weak problem solving and selfmanagement skills;vi) Generalized difficulties in thedomains of home, school, work andleisure (these problems may be
associated with substance abuse).
The above-noted risk factors are
generally applicable but if one is interested
in particular acts such as violent andsexual offenses then assessments are also
conducted of attitudes, associates,
behavioral history, and skill deficits
particular to violent and sexual offending.
Similarly, mentally disordered offenders
may present some special considerations
such as compliance with medication andready access to mental health services.
The sets of risk factors labelled“antisocial attitudes,” “antisocial
associates,” and “history of antisocial
behavior” are of particular significance inthe general social learning perspective on

108TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
criminal conduct.
A. A History of Antisocial Behavior
This set indicates that particularantisocial acts are part of the offender’srepertoire, and typically this means thatthe person has experienced immediate
reinforcement for engaging in those acts.
In the language of relapse prevention, thisentails the risk factor of PIG (the Problem
of Immediate Gratification). Many formsof criminal behavior do deliver immediate
positive sensations and events, including
sometimes short-term relief from feelingsof frustration, resentment, powerlessness,and boredom. The negative consequencesof guilt, shame, disapproval of others, andthe deprivations of official punishment aremuch more delayed (if they occur at all).
From the perspective of self-efficacy, ahistory of antisocial acts suggests that two
key beliefs necessary for engaging in an act
are readily present: “I am able to do that”
and “It will be rewarding.” From the social
learning perspective, in many high risk
situations the immediacy of the signaled
rewards for crime is far more potent thanthe largely delayed costs.
In order to neutralize PIG, a goodcorrectional plan will include elements
aimed at avoiding high risk situations (forexample, conditions around association
patterns, locale, alcohol use, etc). Moregenerally important, however, is that
personal attitudes and thinking patterns
and interpersonal support networks render
the potentially costly consequences more
immediate, more vivid and more dense, andthat the personal and interpersonal
supports for noncriminal behavior are
strong.
B. Antisocial Attitudes
This set is a major contributor to thedecision (or intention, or choice etc.) to
engage in criminal acts. Generally, it
includes having attitudes favourable to law
violations, identifying with others who

violate the law, having negative attitudes
toward the law and criminal justice,holding beliefs that suggest it is “OK” toviolate the law, and believing that eventhose laws that are generally worthy ofrespect may be broken when “one is out ofcontrol,” “pushed too far,” “the victim
deserves it,” “no one gets hurt,” “everyone
is doing it,” and/or “the whole system iscorrupt”. The latter represents
rationalizations for law violations,
techniques of neutralization, or
exonerating mechanisms. The attitude set
also includes those cognitions supportiveof crime that may be associated withfeelings of anger, despair, resentment, anddefiance. If anti-criminal alternatives toantisocial styles of thinking and feeling canbe introduced into the immediate situationof action, then even PIG will not lead tocriminal activity.
C. Antisocial Associates
Human behavior is strongly influenced
not only by personal attitudes, values andbeliefs but also by the support displayedby others for the particular behavior inquestion. Once again, even PIG can beovercome by the clear perception thatimportant others would disapprove. This
is why a good release plan attends toreducing association with antisocial others,
increasing association with anti-criminal
others, and building in social support forcompliance and active participation in therelease plan. Note too that while theimmediate presence of others isparticularly potent, even symbolic social
support may be influential (for example,
the use of published pornography inplanning an offence).
D. What about the Other Major Risk/
Need Factors?
The process of self-regulation depends
upon some minimal level of cognitive andinterpersonal skill for attitudes, associates
and behavioral history to translate into

263

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 54
particular acts in particular situations.
Thus, cognitive skill programs have beenfound to reduce recidivism. Additionally,
increasing the background levels of reward
for noncriminal pursuits in settings suchas family, school, work and leisure may
reduce motivation for crime and enhance
anticriminal attitudes and association
patterns, while simultaneously greatly
increasing the potential costs of crime(because there now is more to lose).
In addition to locating individuals
according to risk/need throughstandardized instruments, correctional
professionals and parole decision makers
may wish to construct an appreciation of
the criminality of particular cases. Thisentails an understanding of the particularrisky situations, circumstances, andthought patterns for this case. As suggestedr e p e a t e d l y, r i s k i s d y n a m i c a n d
individualized. It is here too that issues ofage, gender, ethnicity and class may shapeplanning. This detailed information may
then contribute directly to the correctionalplan, release plan and progress reports.
Before turning to those plans, remember
it is not just the ability of social learningperspectives to identify risk and needfactors that is impressive. The social
learning perspectives also suggest how
these factors influence criminal conduct
and identify powerful influence strategies.
The powerful behavioral/cognitive
behavioral/social learning strategies ofchange include all of the following (andmore):i) Modeling;ii) Reinforcement;iii) Graduated practice;iv) Role playing;v) Extinction;vi) Interpersonal disapproval (if in acontext of dense approval);vii) Giving reasons;viii) Cognitive restructuring.

264

III. ASSESSMENT OF
CORRECTIONAL AND RELEASE
PLANS
The following portions of this paper
represent an attempt to build a checklist
for assessing the quality of correctional
plans and release plans. These indicators
include relevance, specificity and clarity ofshared understanding, feasibility, decency
and legality, and value of proposedinterventions.
Is the plan relevant to the criminal
propensity of this case?
i)

Has a standardized well-validated
risk/need assessment been conductedand has the case been assigned to arisk category;ii) If a low risk case, have minimal
service and supervision conditions
been established;iii) If a higher risk case, have risk control
and risk management beenaddressed;iv) If a highest risk case, are you surethat the opportunity for early
detection of violations has beenmaximized, and that services arevery intensive;v) Have relevant need factors beenaddressed through programming in
the prison or in the community and/or through the setting of releaseconditions.
Is the plan specific and understood by
the offender and involved others?
i)

Does articulation of the plan by theoffender and involved others indicate
shared understanding;ii) In the case of detailed analyses, arespecific risk conditions indentified
and have risk lowering actions been
identified and rehearsed;iii) When the offender discusses prioro f f e n s e s , d o e s t h e o f f e n d e r ’s

108TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
description touch upon specific risk/need factors addressed in the plan;iv) When the offender discusses therelease plan, does the discussion
address risk/need in a mannerconsistent with the understanding ofoffender’s criminality underlying theplan.
Is the plan feasible?
i)ii)

Are the community supports for theplan (accommodation, employment,
treatment services, etc.) in place andreasonably stable;
Are the external and internal controls
and supports sufficient to maintainoffender compliance and active
participation.

Is the plan decent, humane, legal?
i)

Watch out for plans that cover somany bases (conditions) that failure
may be predicted in advance;ii) Restraint by relevance to criminality
is a good rule (experimental evidence
regarding the effects of intensive,
multi-conditioned community
supervision is clear regarding
increased revocation without reduced
criminal offenses);iii) Would victims and police understandthis plan;iv) Can you justify this plan consideringrisk, notoriety, and reputation of theagencies involved;v) Could you state to a victim or to thepress: good correctional practice was
employed, control and assistance was
directed at risk reduction.
Is the programming proposed valuable
programming the value of particular
programs and program participation?
i)Plans and programs may be assessed
according to the extent to which

criminogenic need factors are
addressed (see list of promising andless promising targets for change:
Appendix 1);ii) Promising programs include certain
core components in addition toaddressing criminogenic factors (seelist of indicators of promisingprograms: Appendix 2);iii) The risk reduction potential ofprogram participation is indicated byseveral factors, most notably by
actual change on criminogenic factors(see list of indicators of quality
program participation: Appendix 3);
A few cases will convincingly score low
on both the static risk factors and the more
dynamic risk factors. These cases may be
managed in the community with the least
intrusive supervision conditions consistent
with “just desert” and “notoriety”
considerations. Other cases, however, will
require the more detailed planning and replanning. Re-planning is not failure but arealistic recognition of the dynamic natureof risk, human behaviour, and life
circumstances.
IV. ASSESSMENT OF THE
CONTINUED RELEVANCE OF THE
CORRECTIONAL PLAN AND THE
RELEASE PLAN FOR THISPARTICULAR PERSON
Has the correctional professional’s
understanding of this person’s criminal
propensity changed? For example:i)

Increased appreciation of theimportance of particular risk factorsthat were seen as less important inearlier assessments (for example: useof alcohol is now seen to be interferingwith familial and employment
functioning, and instability in theseareas is reasonably linked to criminal
propensity in this case);

265

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 54
ii)

Expressed sentiments suggest thatrationalizations for law violations(e.g., discounting potential victims)
and negative feelings (e.g.,resentment) are emerging as risk
factors;iii) Problems of unemployment continue
but without any other indication ofincreased risk (perhaps concerns
around employment were over-rated
initially).
Do circumstances in the community(service availability, labour market, etc.)
suggest re-planning? Would any changes
in plan better manage risk and/or better
reduce risk?
V. ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESSSUMMARIESi)

Status on general risk/need factors
has been surveyed and foundsatisfactory?

ii)

Status on individualized risk factors
has been surveyed and foundsatisfactory?

iii) Status on conditions of release has
been surveyed and foundsatisfactory?
iv) Progress reports reflect view of
involved others?
v)

Any evidence of weak communication
among involved others?

vi) Would any changes in plan better
manage risk and/or better reducerisk?
vii) Overall, how do progress summaries
rate on specificity, relevance,
feasibility, shared understanding by
all involved?

266

Remember, the lists of indicators ofpromising targets, promising programs,
and quality participation apply here as well
(Appendix 1, 2 and3).
VI. SPECIFIC POST RELEASE
INTERVENTIONS
Referrals to quality programs in someof the major need areas may be indicatedby progress summaries where judged
relevant to criminal propensity (refer toAppendix 1, 2 and 3).A major source ofcontrol and assistance, however, resides in
the relationship between the offender andthe parole officer, and between the offenderand other involved workers (for example,
in group homes).It is now clear, forexample, that the effectiveness ofsupervision programs does not reflect sizeof caseload, simple frequency of contact, or
electronic monitoring. The criticalcomponents of supervision for purposes ofrisk reduction are the well-known ones first
listed in the 1970s (and represented asworker characteristics in Appendix 2):i) Q u a l i t y o f t h e i n t e r p e r s o n a lrelationship between offender andworker: generally people learn morefrom and are more greatly influenced
by others who are respectful, caring,
concerned, interested, interesting,enthusiastic and engaged. In social
learning terms, these supervisors
have available high quality
reinforcers, their expressions of
disapproval function as high quality
costs, and they make more effectivemodels (their behaviours are more
likely to be imitated, and theirsuggestions more likely to be triedout). In brief, it is simply counter tothe psychology of human behaviour
to expect high levels of interpersonal
influence in the absence of open,
warm and enthusiastic
communication.
ii) Style of communication may also be

108TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
very important in the context ofsupervision, and particularly ininteraction with types of offenders.
Interpersonally anxious offenders do
not respond well to highly
confrontational and criticalinterpersonal exchanges, while theless anxious offender can respond aslong as there is the backgroundcondition of caring and respect.
Obviously, the less verbally gifted andcognitively immature offender will
not pick up on highly verbal andanalytic approaches to interpersonali n f l u e n c e . S i m i l a r l y, t h e l e s s
empathic, less interpersonallysensitive offender may not be
expected to respond to subtle cuesand suggestions. Generally, in fact,
it is best for communication to be
direct and concrete.
iii) A major role for supervisors andcorrectional workers is the modelingand reinforcement of anti-criminal
alternatives to antisocial styles ofthinking, feeling and acting. Here thesupervisors, workers and potentiallyeven citizen volunteers provide thevaluable service often missing in theoffender’s environment.
iv) Concrete assistance often takes theform of concrete problem solving
efforts with the offender, and/or
advocacy and brokering activity withother community settings.
v) Authority can be influential when
exercised with respect, with
explanation (giving reasons), withguidance on how to comply, and in a
firm but fair manner. Overall, theauthority figure would want tocommunicate that compliance ispossible and that the offender can
succeed. Failure is avoidable andcompliance will be rewarded!. One of
the few conditions under which
deterrence works is the condition
under which defiance is avoided

through respectful guidance toward
compliance. The child developmental
literature reminds us of theimportance of differentiating between
rules and requests. It is best toreserve sanctions for situations inwhich rules are involved. Best too
when the heavy sanctions (the“doomsday” contingencies whichremove the offender from community
control) are reserved for serious andimmediate risk. Finally, there is noevidence from the meta-analyses ofeffective treatment that mandated
intervention interferes with thesuccess of intervention.
Probation and Parole supervisors aremandated to give directions, develop goals
and objectives, and outline expectations to
the offender. The nature and extent of
support that will be offered by thesupervisor is also outlined for the offender.
Research with young offenders has shownthat these activities were associated with
reduced recidivism when the goals andobjectives were judged clear, clinicallyappropriate, and achieved.
When risk is high, the monitoring andassistance functions of supervision areenhanced through increased frequency ofcontact in combination with the strategies
of effective supervision. Parole supervisors
are also mandated to engage in disciplinaryinterviews when it is judge that risk to thecommunity may be increasing. Disciplinaryinterviews involve cautioning the offenderin a clear and formal manner. Sanctions or
new obligations or expectations may be
imposed. Once again, the style of thesecommunications and their relevance tocriminal propensity may be crucial to theireffectiveness.
REFERENCE
Andrews, D. A. and Bonta, James (1994).
The Psychology of Criminal Conduct
Cincinnati: Anderson.

267

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 54
Andrews, D. A. (1979) The Dimensionsof Correctional Counselling andSupervision Process in Probation and
Parole. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of
Correctional Services.
Andrews, D. A. (1989) Recidivism is
Predictable and Can Be Influenced: Using
Risk Assessments to Reduce Recidivism.
Forum on Corrections Research, 1(2), 1118.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D.
(1990) Classification for Effective
Rehabilitation: Rediscovering Psychology.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
Andrews, D. A., & Friesen, W. (1987)
Assessments of Anticriminal Plans and thePrediction of Criminal Futures: A Research
Note. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14,33-37.
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D.,
Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T.
(1990). Does Correctional Treatment Work?
A Psychologically Informed Meta-analysis.
Criminology, 28, 369-404.
Antonowicz, Daniel H., & Ross, RobertR. (in press). Essential Components ofSuccessful Rehabilitation Programs for
Offenders. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology.
Bonta, James, Law, Moira, & Hanson,
Karl (Forthcoming). The Prediction of
Criminal and Violent Recidivism among
Mentally Disordered Offenders: A Metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin
Braithwaite, John (1993). Beyond
Positivism: Leaning from Contextual
Integrated Strategies. Journal of Researchin Crime and Delinquency, 30, 383-399.
Gendreau, Paul (1993). Does “Punishing
Smarter” Work? An Assessment of the New
Generation of Alternative Sanctions. A
paper prepared for Corrections Research,
Ministry Secretariat, Solicitor General,
February.
Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (1990).
Tertiary Prevention: What the Metaanalyses of the Offender Treatment

268

Literature tell us about “What Works”.
Canadian Journal of Criminology, 32, 173184.
Gendreau, Paul, Cullen, F.T., & Bonta,
James (1994). Intensive Rehabilitation
Supervision: the Next Generation in
Community Corrections. Federal
Probation, 58, March, 72-80.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Coggin, C.
(1996). A Meta-analysis of the Predictorsof Adult Offender Recidivism: What Works.
Criminology 34:575-607.
Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. R. (1979).
E f f e c t i v e C o r r e c t i o n a l Tr e a t m e n t :Bibliotherapy for Cynics. Crime andDelinquency, 25, 463-489.
Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. R. (1981).
Correctional Potency: Treatment andDeterrence on Trial. In R. Roesch & R. R.
Corrado (Eds.), Evaluation and Criminal
Justice Policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. R. (1987).
Revivication of Rehabilitation: Evidence
from the 1980s. Justice Quarterly, 4, 349408.
L i p s e y, M . W. ( 1 9 9 0 ) . J u v e n i l eDelinquency Treatment: A Meta-Analytic
Inquiry into Variability of Effects. A reportto the Research Synthesis Committee of theRussell Sage Foundation.
Lipton, D., Martinson, R., & Wilks, J.
(1975). The Effectiveness of Correctional
Treatment: A Survey of Treatment
Evaluation Studies. New York: Praeger.
Logan, C.H., & Gaes, G. G. (1993) Metaanalysis and the Rehabilitation of
Punishment. Justice Quarterly, 10, 245-63.
Losel, F. (1993). Evaluating Psychosocial
Interventions in Prison and Other Penal
Contexts. A paper for the Twentieth
Criminological Research Conference,
Strasbourg, November.
Martinson, R. (1974). What Works? Questions and Answers About Prison
Reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22-54.
Martinson, R. (1979). New Findings,
New Views: A Note of Caution Regarding
Prison Reform. Hofstra Law Review, 7, 243-

108TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
258.
*McGuire, James (Ed.) (1995). What
Works: Reducing Reoffending. Guidelines
from Research and Practice. Chichester:John Wiley.
Palmer, T. (1975). Martinson revisited.
Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency, 12, 133-152.
Sherman, Lawrence W. (1993). Defiance,
Deterrence, and Irrelevance: A Theory of
Criminal Sanction. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 30, 445-473.
Simourd, Linda & Andrews, D. A. (1994).
Correlates of Delinquency: A look at GenderDifferences. Forum on Corrections
Research 6:26-31.
Whitehead, J. T., & Lab, S. P. (1989). A
Meta-Analysis of Juvenile Correctional
Treatment. Journal of Research on Crimeand Delinquency, 26, 276-295.
* Note: the McGuire (1995) collection isvery valuable. Please explore chapters byAndrews, Lipsey, Lozel, Bush and all of theother authors.

• Reducing Chemical Dependencies andSubstance Abuse• Shifting the Density of the Personal,Interpersonal and other Rewards andCosts for Criminal and Noncriminal
Activities in Familial, Academic,
Vocational, Recreational and other
Behavioral Settings, so that the
Noncriminal Alternatives are Favored• Providing the ChronicallyPsychiatrically Troubled with Low
Pressure, Sheltered Living
Arrangements and/or Effective
Medication (risk is greatest during
periods of active psychosis)• Insuring that the Client is able torecognize Risky Situations, and has aConcrete and well Rehearsed Plan for
Dealing with those Situations.
• Confronting the Personal andCircumstantial Barriers to Service(client motivation; backgroundstressors with which clients may be
preoccupied)• Reduce Individualized need Factors (ifreasonably linked with crime)

APPENDIX 1APROMISING TARGETS FORCHANGE• Changing Antisocial Attitudes• Changing/Managing Antisocial
Feelings• Reducing Antisocial Peer Associations• Promoting Familial Affection/
Communication• Promoting Familial Monitoring andSupervision• Promoting Child/Family Protection(Preventing Neglect/Abuse)• Promoting Identification/Association
with Anti-Criminal Role Models• Increasing Self-Control, SelfManagement and Problem Solving
Skills• Replacing the Skills of Lying, Stealing
and Aggression with more Pro-Social
Alternatives

APPENDIX 1B
LESS PROMISING TARGETS• Increasing Self-Esteem (without
simultaneous reductions in antisocial
thinking, feeling and peer
associations)• Focusing on Vague Emotional/
Personal Complaints that have notbeen Linked with Criminal Conduct• Increasing the Cohesiveness ofAntisocial Peer Groups• Improving Neighborhood-wide Living
Conditions, without touching the
Criminogenic needs of Higher Risk
Individuals and Families• Showing Respect for Antisocial
Thinking on the Grounds that the
Values of one Culture are as Equally
Valid as the Values of another Culture(no culture but a criminal culture

269

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 54
Values Harming others)• Increasing Conventional Ambition in
the Areas of School and Work without
Concrete Assistance in Realizingthese Ambitions• Attempting to turn the Client into a“Better Person,” when the Standards
for being a “Better Person” do not linkwith Recidivism.
APPENDIX 2
INDICATORS OF EFFECTIVE
PROGRAMS• An Empirically-Validated Theory
underlying the Intervention• Empirically-Validated Strategies
employed (or researchers involved indesign/delivery of service)• Adequate Dosage• Trained and Clinically supervised
Service Deliverers• Printed Training / Program Manuals• Addressing Criminogenic needs ofHigher Risk Cases• Uses Concrete Social leaning
Approaches• Structures Follow-Up• Workers are Enthusiastic andEngaged• Workers are able to handle their
Authority without Domination/Abuse• Workers are able to recorgnize
Antisocial Thinking, Feeling andActing, and are able to Demonstrateand Reinforce Concrete Alternatives• workers are predisposed to Offer
Concrete Problem Solving and toengage in Skill Building.
• Wo r k e r s e n g a g e i n A d v o c a c y /Brokerage where Appropriate
APPENDIX 3
INDICATORS OF QUALITY
PARTICIPATION• Check that Program is Appropriate on
Risk, need and Social Learning

270

Conditions• Check that Program is Actually
Delivered (integrity)• Attendance• Engaged in Process (active
participation)• Completion of Program (mature as
opposed to premature program
termination)• Quality Relationship with Service
Provider (respect, liking)• Showing change on the Intermediate
Targets (reduced criminogenic need)• No Evidence that other Criminogenic
needs are being Increased