PRINCIPLES AND PROGRAMS FOR YOUNG OFFENDERSDavid S.Prescott

I. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL OVERVIEWPerhaps the most important message for this presentation comes not from a great psychologist or
criminologist,but from Ringo Starr,who was the drummer for the Beatles.In 1967,he sang a song titled“I Get By with a Little Help from my Friends”. This is how it is when adults come together to try to
work with young people who have gotten into trouble with the law.It is very important to rememberthat every professional in our field is one anotherʼs best resource for working with this often very
difficult and challenging population. On that note,I send a special greeting to people who are new tothe field.I often like to make the joke that every one of my grey hairs is a teenager whom Iʼve worked
with.
This presentation first provides a historical overview of the challenges and problems in working
with young people who break the law. It next discusses what works in assessment and treatment. It
then focuses on the principles of risk, need, and responsivity. These are principles that every professional should know about. I will include a special emphasis on how professionals should conduct
themselves when interacting with young people who break the law. I will also focus on what thescientific research says about who these young people are,who we are as professionals,whatʼs new inassessment,and whatʼs new in treatment programs.As we enter this field,the most important questionthat we can ask ourselves is,“Do we want these young people to keep breaking the law,or not?”The
reason I ask this question is that our history is filled with many attempts to get young people to behave
themselves,and yet these attempts only made matters worse.Itʼs important for us to consider what we
can do and also who we should be when we are interacting with young people who break the law.And
so, I will start with a discussion on treatment:where weʼve been and where we need to be.
The take-home message is that when we build healthy lives and safe communities, we need tounderstand the motivations of all young people, their internal motivations, and the context in whichthese motivations occur. Itʼs vital to remember that motivation can never be forced onto a young
person. Also, it is vital that our goals in treatment should be goals that every young person canapproach and work towards, rather than goals which young people try to avoid. For example, it canbe easier and more successful to work towards a goal of a better future and a life worth living than
it is to work on a goal thatʼs based on a goal of not getting into any more trouble.Another importantmessage is that all professionals need to build an alliance with the young people with whom they work,and that we need to measure this alliance in an ongoing and structured way so that we understand ouractions from each young personʼs perspective.
Letʼs take a quick look backwards at the historyofour field.I have great respect for everybodywho
has been involved in this work because adults have had difficulty understanding and predicting the
behavior of young people for many thousands of years.My intention is to be tough on issues,but tenderon people. It is important to remember what criminologist Vern Quinsey said in 1998,that people are
not now as smart as they think and the people used to be smarter than we now think they were(Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998).
M y primary concern in working with young people who break the law is that during the past 30
years is that the majority of progress that we have made has been technological in nature. We knowthat from the beginning of time when adults have had concerns about their lives and the lives of others
Director, Professional Development Quality Improvement, Becket Family Services.

69

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 91
theyʼ
ve come together into groups, whether talking as small communities or coming together as
professional organizations. It is vitally important that every professional not only attend school andread the scientific research,it is also important that we talk about the challenges we face in working
with others.And this is how many of our professions began.Well over 2000 years ago,in ancient Rome,
Publilius Syrus observed that the way people talk is a mirror of the soul,and that as a person speaks
so is he or she. By the time of the 1600s, Pascal observed that people are generally better persuadedby the reasons which they have,themselves,discovered than by those which have come into the mindof others.What this means is that people are often more convinced by what they hear themselves saythan they are by what other people say to them;this latter point was made by Daryl Bem in 1972 withhis self-perception theory (Bem, 1972). This is particularly true with teenagers. It is a very greatchallenge for any adult to attempt to directly influence a young person.We can be more effective when
we attempt to awaken a young personʼs internal motivation to build a better life for themselves(Naar-King, 2010;M iller & Rollnick, 2013).
As we review the history of our field, particularly in the large institutions ― psychiatric andcorrectional ― of western cultureʼs history,it is striking how much treatment has been done to others
rather than with them or for them (Miller & Rollnick,2013).Western Europe and North America havea long tradition of attempting to impose treatment onto people who get into trouble with the law orcause concern for societies.This has continued up to the present where many attempts have been madeto change people,even though these attempts have proven unsuccessful (Parhar,Wormith,Derzken &Beauregard, 2008). A recent controversy in the United States, for example, has included attempts tochange peopleʼ
s sexual orientation. Although it is certainly acceptable for anybody to make changes
to their own life, too often treatment has been used by some people to get other people to change,
despite evidence that it is unlikely to be successful. M uch of criminology made a tremendous change
in the year 1974 when a criminologist named Robert M artinson published an article on rehabilitation
programs in prison services.He asked the question,“
Does nothing work?”And his preliminaryanalyses
found that there was no effect of treatment programs on crime within the prison system in North
America. However, five years later he admitted that these preliminary analyses had been wrong.
Unfortunately,by this time,the damage was done and many prisons had simply eliminated all of theirtreatment programs. Paul Gendreau, another great criminologist, came along several years later andprovided research showing that something works in the treatment of people who had broken the law,and yet for many years it was unclear what it was that worked.This “something works”doctrine thenbecame known as the “what works?”doctrine once scientific research showed that in fact correctional
treatment programs can and do work for young people.
By 1979,in psychotherapy research,Edward Bordin found that the therapeutic alliance that so many
people rely on in treatment could be defined as building agreement on the nature of the relationship,
agreement on the goals of treatment, agreement on the tasks of treatment, and later researcher John
Norcross would add that client preferences are important to consider in the construction of treatment
programs (Bordin,1979;Norcross,2010).Since 1979,over 1,100 studies have emphasized the importanceof the alliance in all forms ofpsychotherapy(Orlinsky,Ronnestad,& Willutski,2004).This is importantto take into account. Just five years after Robert M artinson said that nothing worked, we had thebuilding blocks of understanding what actually are the key ingredients in treatment programs withyoung people as well as adults.However,just a few years later,in the field oftreating sexual offenders,Anna Salter made clear her belief that treatment should be confrontational (Salter,1988).In fact,she
said in a famous book that she wrote,“the process of treating child sex offenders is heavily weighted
in the direction of confrontation. Treatment requires continual confrontation.”As examples, she
included “No, I donʼt trust you, and you would be pretty foolish to trust yourself.”and “Give me abreak. What do you mean one drink canʼt do any harm?”(p.93). She later says that treatment should
not be hostile,and yet many of these statements can appear hostile to those who read her book.Even
when Salterʼs book appeared on the market, it was already known that many of the most importantelements of psychotherapy included the therapeutic relationship. However, the belief among those
professionals treating violent and sexual offenders was that treatment needs to be confrontational innature.
By 1990, Alan Jenkins in Australia wrote a book on the therapeutic engagement of men who were
violent and abusive,and he emphasized three important areas in this work (Jenkins,1990).He emphas-

70154TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
ized the importance in establishing a mission in responsibility.This involved assisting the people whom
the man had victimized, using treatment to prevent further abuse, and developing self-respect andintegrity. Alan Jenkinsʼpoint is that treating abusive men can be beneficial to the man, to thecommunity, and to the people whom he has abused. The earliest studies of the sexual offender
treatment had great difficulty finding significant effects of treatment programming. For example,
Furby and her colleagues found no significant treatment effect due to methodological variability(Furby, Wenrott, and Blackshaw, 1989). However, by the beginning of the decade of the 2000s, Karl
Hansen and his colleagues found that treatment programs could reduce sexual offending by as muchas 40%,and this study included treatment programs for young people (Hanson,Gordon,Harris,et al.,2002). These results were similar to those found in a European meta-analysis (Losel & Schmucker,
2005). By 1995, Geral Blanchard published the first book on the therapeutic relationship in sexual
offender treatment (Blanchard,1995).However,this book was only 55 pages long.So,for many years,
we knew that treatment programs might work for violent offenders and sexual offenders,but there wasvery little written on how to actually do this work.
In 1998,a method for managing adult sex offenders in the community was published (English,1998).
However, it was described as an aggressive strategy for the community management of adult sex
offenders. In other words, this management strategy actually described itself as aggressive in thetreatment of aggressive behavior. They emphasized that in this approach the client is the community
and that treatment and supervision are meant for the benefit of the client themselves. And so, thismeant that people entering treatment for aggressive behavior had to be aware that their therapist wasworking for the benefit,purely,of the community,and not for them.All of this was despite decades ofresearch finding that the therapeutic alliance is an important part of making criminal offenders lessdangerous.In 1999,a researcher named Rick Snyder emphasized the importance of building hope in all
forms of psychotherapy (Snyder, Michael, & Cheavens, 1999). He described two key components tohope, including agency thinking, which is an awareness that a goal is attainable, and pathways
thinking, which is an awareness of how to do it. He observed that therapists who are burned out orotherwise fail to convey hopefulness are modeling low agency and pathways thinking.
In 2005, an important study appeared on the treatment of sexual abusers (Marques,Wiederanders,Day, Nelson, & van Ommeren, 2005). At first, it found no overall differences between treated anduntreated clients. However, they noted that sex offenders who successfully completed the treatment
program reoffended at lower rates than those who did not demonstrate that they understood theirtreatment goals. In other words, people who meaningfully and genuinely worked on their treatment
goals and understood the importance of treatment were more likely to benefit from treatment thanthose who simply went through a treatment program as if it was an educational program. This is an
important consideration in the treatment of all criminal offenders. Simply putting people through a
psychoeducational class is not nearly as effective as meaningfully engaging them in a treatment
program where they can examine and rebuild their lives. In 2005 to 2007, researchers Bill and Liam
M arshall studied the characteristics ofeffective treatment and found that the most successful treatment
providers are those who are warm, empathic, rewarding, and directive in the way that they provide
treatment (for example,M arshall,2005).These researchers also emphasized the importance of preparatory programming as people first enter treatment programs to become less abusive.
By the time 2008 came around,Karen Parhar and her colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 129
studies (Parhar et al., 2008). They found that “in general, mandated treatment was found to beineffective, particularly when the treatment program was located in a custodial setting, whereas
voluntary treatment produced significant treatment effect sizes, regardless of the setting”. In otherwords,the more coercive the treatment program,the less effective it can be.Tying all of these threads
together, what is important to remember is that the most important aspect of correctional treatment
programs is not the custodial setting,it is the people who form the relationships that make it possible
for young people to build better and healthier lives.
As an example of how good treatment programs can go bad,in M assachusetts it is now necessary
for people who break the law and go into treatment programs to sign a form acknowledging thatanything they say in treatment can be used against them in a court of law (Larni Levi, personalcommunication). M eanwhile, in Texas, the goal of treatment programs for sex offenders make clear

71

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 91
that the ultimate client in treatment is the people who have been harmed by sex offenders and not theoffenders, themselves. They explain that sex offender treatment is different from traditional psychotherapy in that treatment is mandated, it is structured, centered on the needs of the victims, and thatthe treatment provider imposes values and limits. In other words, the treatment programs actuallyconduct themselves in a way that previous research has shown doesnʼ
t work.So,the point that I wantto emphasize is that in many areas in North America,we actually know better and yet we continue to
do worse. And so, it is vital that treatment programs focus on what we know actually works.
In 2012, Corrections Canada published a study by Robin Wilson and his colleagues finding thatcollaborative risk management and attending to sound correctional principals as well as holistic
community after care can contribute to reduced reoffending (Wilson,Cortoni,Picheca,Stirpe,& Nunes,2012).This study illustrated the need for community treatment after people had been institutionalized,
and what they found was that a central goal of remaining balanced and self-determined was key to thesuccess of the offender. And so, an important aspect of all treatment programs should be to build abalanced and self-determined lifestyle for all clients. Meanwhile, in my home state of M aine, recent
laws have instead emphasized public humiliation and shame-based approaches,such as putting signs up
in public parks warning sex offenders to stay away. In the American state of Florida,there are somelocations that will put a sign up in front of the house of sex offenders to warn the neighbors to stayaway from him or her.Even in the weeks before this presentation,the United States Senate passed the
beginning of a new law to make it impossible for violent criminal offenders to receive some forms of
public assistance.These kinds of public policies are demonstrated clearly in the scientific research not
to work, and yet there are many locations that enforce them anyway. The moral of the story is thatinstead of punishing people at every turn, we need to think about our work as a form of crime
prevention. We need to think prevention. We need to be prevention. We need to remember that ourefforts in treating young people are prevention, and that we are all in the field of crime prevention.
Perhaps the most important study in this area was conducted by Paula Smith and her colleagues in2002 (Smith, Goggin, & Gendreau, 2002). They conducted an analysis of 117 studies since 1958. It
included 442,471 criminal offenders, including juveniles. They found that no form of punishment
reduced re-offense risk. They concluded that prisons and intermediate sanctions should not be usedwith the expectation of reducing criminal behavior. They found that this included intensive surveillance,electronic monitoring,drug-abuse education,and a program called “Scared Straight”.They evenfound that incarcerating low-risk criminals can actually increase their risk for further criminal
offending. This is an important study because it challenges us to think about the differences between
punishment and rehabilitation. Punishment is punishment, and efforts to rehabilitate can involve
treatment collaborative supervision, and other methods. However, the moment that rehabilitation
begins to look like punishment is that moment that rehabilitative efforts are probably not going towork.
A critical message for professionals in our field to remember is that empathic adults will be more
effective with young people who break the law. However, research shows us that even the best
professionals can become less empathic over time when working with young people. In fact, one
researcher named M ohammadreza Hojat found that medical students becoming doctors actually can
become less empathic over the course of their education.The challenge for all professionals in our field
is to remain empathic and to remain effective with the young people that we work with.In fact,there
has been so much research on empathy that it may be wiser for all of us to work to remain compassionate with the young people with whom we work.

II. RISK. NEED. RESPONSIVITY
Across the past 20 or so years,criminologists Don Andrews and James Bonta have researched theprinciples of effective correctional programming and have found three principles that stand out above
all others. These are the risk principle, need principle, and the responsivity principle (Andrews &Bonta, 2010).
The risk principle holds that effective programs match the level of treatment intensity to the levelof risk posed by the client:higher risk clients should receive higher intensity treatment.Andrews and72

154TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
Bonta found that mismatching can increase risk, and ― perhaps most importantly ― that the extent
of oneʼs criminal history is among the most predictive factors that one can consider for each client.
Andrews and Bonta further discussed the big four of risk factors. These are:antisocial attitudes,
antisocial associates, a history of antisocial behavior, and an antisocial personal pattern, which can
include psychopathy, impulsivity, restless and aggressive energy, egocentrism, thrill seeking, poor
problem solving,and poor self-regulation skills.It is not difficult to look at this list and begin devisingtreatment strategies for many of the young people who come into our treatment programs. Itʼsimportant to look at this list and consider how many of our actions may benefit and interfere with theprogress of many of our young people.For example,if we want to improve the lives of teenagers who
get into trouble with the law,it is vital that we provide them with access to situations where they candevelop healthier attitudes and friendships with others.Also predictive of future offense are problems
at home,such as low level ofaffection,caring,and cohesiveness;poor parental supervision,neglect,andabuse;problems at school or work,including low levels of education and achievement,and an unstable
employment history;or with the use of leisure time,such as time to exercise and substance abuse.The
ability to predict criminal behavior increases with the number and variety of these major risk factors
and the number of different sources of information that are used.
Factors that are not associated with risk can be surprising.For example,denial that somebody has
engaged in problem behavior is not known to be associated with their overall level of dangerousness.
Neither is their capacity to have empathy for the people that they have harmed. Many personality
features, such as an overall level of confidence or avoidance of relationships, may or may not haveanything to do with the likelihood they will commit future crimes. Likewise,psychological maladjustment does not necessarily contribute to future criminal behavior.
It is essential that assessments be done at the start of each individualʼ
s treatment.Ultimately,all of
our treatment programs should be driven by a solid assessment.There are many good risk assessment
tools, although the extent to which they have been tested in Asian populations remains unknown.
However, one instrument for sex offense recidivism was recently tested in Indonesia. This was theEstimate of Risk for Adolescent Sex Offense Recidivism (ERASOR;Worling & Curwen, 2001).
In North America,programs such as drug abuse and resistance education have been very popular,
and yet have also been found not to actually reduce the likelihood that young people will take up drug
abuse. How is this?It seems that the risk principle provides the answer.When one provides the sameintervention ― drug abuse resistance education ― to all people,it reduces the risk of only a very few,
and it increases the risk ofa small minority,therebyproducing no appreciable results.A common belief
amongst people who provide drug abuse resistance abuse education is that if it reaches only one person
it will have been worthwhile. However, what many professionals donʼt consider is how many people
actually become more likely to take up drug abuse as a result of this intervention.
Likewise, in North America, there has been an emphasis on using technological solutions, such as
electronic monitoring and global positioning systems, in the supervision of people in trouble with thelaw. However, these technological solutions have not yet been shown to reduce risk even a little bit.
There have been many attempts to take all kids who have gotten into trouble with the law andprovide them with a similar intervention aimed at making them afraid of continuing in crime. The“Scared Straight”program is one such example.Research has found conclusively that it doesnʼ
t work,and yet, it has been very popular (Smith, Goggin, & Gendreau, 2002). The Scared Straight programʼs
intention has been to take groups of young people in trouble with the law and take them inside prisonswhere the inmates then scare them with stories of what itʼs like to be in prison. Scared Straight has
been very effective at scaring young people in the short term, but very ineffective at actually getting
them to change their behavior in the long term.
When considering the risk principle, it is vital to remember that whatever our sense of morals,
whatever our values are, they make no difference. We need to remember that risk is an underlying
likelihood to continue in problem behavior.We cannot preach bad behavior away.We can only invite
young people to reconsider their lives. Our punishments are effective at punishing,but only rehabilita-73

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 91
tion makes people less likely to continue in crime. The risk principle reminds us that we can makepeople more dangerous just as easily ― and perhaps more easily ― than we can make them lessdangerous.
The second of the three principles is the need principle. The need principle holds that effective
treatment programs target identified needs in the research. This means that many people come into
treatment programs wanting to work in some area but not others.Effective treatment programs lookat what research identified as meaningful treatment goals. The need principle finds that people whohave sexuallyor violentlyabused require specific kinds oftreatment programming and that other kindsof treatment programs may result in some ancillary gain,but that risk for re-offense will likely not be
reduced. For example, criminal interests, criminal attitudes and beliefs, criminal cognitive schemas,
criminal associates, criminal significant others, self-regulation problems, and deficits in selfmanagement (including problem-solving skills and coping skills)are all important treatment goals for
programs seeking to rehabilitate young people.An example of a treatment program that will not workwith young people will be leisure gardening.Getting young people to take care ofplants or animals will
only be good for developing skills in these areas.However,these areas can be meaningful for helping
young people develop skills for getting along with one another, which can be related to the needprinciple of criminal attitudes and associates. However, this is not a direct pathway. Perhaps mostimportant in the need principle is also developing young peopleʼ
s ability to observe themselves, theirthoughts, and their actions. This is the focus of a section later in this presentation.
The responsivity principle holds that effective programs are those which are responsive to client
characteristics. The key element of the responsivity principle is that professionals can build thecapacity for young people to respond to the programs in which they find themselves.Aspects such as
cognitive abilities, maturity, motivation, the mode of intervention, scheduling concerns, and understanding each personʼ
s past history of trauma are all key to building responsivity. Relationshipproblems, learning difficulties, hyperactivity, communication difficulty, and cognitive rigidity are allimportant factors to consider, but in assessments and in treatment programs.
Returning to the earlier example of leisure gardening and working with animals:it can be the casethat treatment programs can use these ancillary treatment methods to build up the capacity of young
people to respond to treatment. However, they cannot, on their own, be expected to result in adecreased willing to commit further crimes. Some simple methods for building responsivity in treatment can included the 4-to-1 rule. The 4-to-1 rule holds that all professionals should provide four
positive messages for every one negative message that they give to young people.In other words,four
positive affirmations or validations of the young person for every negative message they send back to
the adolescent.
Another method for building responsivity can involve journaling. Researcher James Pennebakerfound that simply having people write a journal of all of the challenges they faced was successful inhaving people develop the ability to reconsider their lives and what they wanted to do with their lives
Pennebaker, 1990).Likewise,adjunctive treatments,such as yoga and meditation,although they donʼt
directly address criminal behavior, can build the young personʼ
s capacity to respond to the treatment
programs that are available to them.
As an example of the principles of risk, need, and responsivity, letʼs imagine a brief case example
of a young man who I will call Arthur.Arthur came from a broken home where his mother remarried
and rebuilt their family. Arthur got into trouble for stealing a car and setting fire to an unoccupied
house. He was arrested and came into treatment blaming his peer group for setting him up for thiscrime. In treatment, Arthur worked to make his family relationships better and establish a new peergroup.Arthur had no prior criminal history,and he was able to use treatment to explore his attitudes
and beliefs as well as the effect of his relationships and peer groups on his behavior. Arthur worked
hard in school and graduated,eventually going off to university.Arthur was an example of a low risk
adolescent who was amenable to treatment and able to rebuild his life.An effective treatment programfor Arthur would involve lower intensity and provide an opportunity for him to rebuild his life.
Because Arthur was of average intelligence and had a high level of motivation to change,he could beconsidered a low risk, low need, high level of responsivity client.

74

154TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
Next, letʼs examine the case of Josh. Josh also came from a broken home. He started drinking
alcohol at the age of 10 and listened to his father assault his mother five out of every seven nights formany months. Josh was first arrested at the age of 12 after he broke into a house and stole many
belongings from it.He was again arrested at the age of 13 for a violent offense against his teacher.Josh
did not want to take responsibility for his behavior and threatened to assault his therapist and theagent who supervised him in the community.Josh was sent to a residential treatment center in anotherpart of the state. He received treatment four days a week and participated in a number of sports
activities.Josh continued to receive supervision in the community when he returned,and the treatment
providers worked to involve his family in treatment to the greatest extent possible. Josh was able tosucceed and went on to lead an offense-free life. Josh was an example of a high-risk, high-need,
low-responsivity client. He required a more intensive level of treatment and had a greater number oftreatment goals than Arthur. His treatment continued in the community after the end of residential
treatment and was eventually successful.However,Josh had a harder time responding to the treatment
interventions that were available to him.If Arthur had been sent to a program where he was provided
with an intensive level of treatment, it may have happened that he would become more dangerous asa result of exposure to others with similar criminal histories. However, by keeping Arthur in thecommunity, it was possible to provide him with a more actively pro-social peer group.
Next, letʼs look at some examples of effective treatment programs. In the past 25 years, scientificresearchers have examined a number of treatment programs.The first of these is called multi-systemic
therapy for antisocial behavior.It is an intensive family and community-based treatment.It focuses onenvironmental systems that impact chronic and violent juvenile offenders. Multi-systemic therapy
takes place in the home, in the family, in schools and it can involve teachers and friends.It acknowledges that every system in a young personʼ
s life plays a role in their life. M ulti-systemic therapy has
been shown to be effective in many studies.However,it is not without critics who wonder whether partof its success may have more to do with the intensive level of supervision that the professional receives.
Studies conducted by the authors of multi-systemic therapy have not found the same level of results.
It seems that an important factor to consider is the intensity of supervision for each professional andthe extent to which they actively follow the model that they are working in.
Another example of a successful treatment approach has been functional family therapy. This is a
short-term program involving 12 sessions over three to four months.It involves five phases,including
engagement in a change process, motivation to change, relational and interpersonal assessment andplanning for behavior change,the behavior change itself,and the generalization of treatment gains tooneʼ
s daily life.
A classic form of treatment in North America that has a good scientific basis is cognitive behavioral
therapy, first introduced by Aaron Beck. It addresses problematic emotions, maladaptive behaviors,
thoughts,attitudes,beliefs,and other cognitive processes.It uses goal-oriented and explicit systematic
procedures. Please note that cognitive behavioral therapy does not spend a great deal of time goingback over the clientʼs history and how they came to develop their problems.Rather,it focuses on thehere and now and emphasizes what people can do in their future. A common criticism of cognitive
behavioral therapy is that it therefor doesnʼ
t always go deep into a clientʼs understanding of the world
around them or into their relationships with others and often doesnʼ
t explore emotions or behavior ata deep enough level. However, much of this depends on how one administers cognitive behavioral
therapy.Another recent development in working with young people who get into trouble with the law
has been trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy,which is a variation that explores the effects oftrauma in the lives of young people.
A very new development in working with people of all backgrounds has been feedback informed
treatment,also known as client-directed outcome informed treatment,developed by Scott Miller,Barry
Duncan and others.Feedback informed treatment,which I am discussing today,is associated with Scott
M iller. It measures changes in broad areas of clinical change. It measures changes in the therapeutic
alliance consisting of the relationship, the goals of treatment, treatment methods, and client preferences. It incorporates feedback on these changes into treatment itself. It has developed a strong
research base.

75

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 91
A critical development in recent years has been motivational interviewing.M otivational interviewing involves helping people to say why and how they might change,and is based on the use of a guiding
style. Many analyses have found that it can be very effective and, unlike many other treatment
methods, it tends to be most effective when it is not manual-guided, but rather guided by underlying
principles of partnership, acceptance, compassion for the client, and evocation of the clientʼs internalreasons to change.One meta-analysis also found that motivational interviewing gained the best effects
with people who in the United States were from ethnic minorities (Hettema, M iller, & Steele, 2005).
This included people of Asian descent as well as Native American, African American, and Latino
descent. Where traditional forms of communication in treatment might involve a treatment provider
giving advice and providing information, motivational interviewing involves offering a reflective
statement, exploring the clientʼs statement and perspectives, offering information, and exploring how
the client responds to that information.It is an empathic conversation in which the therapist adopts a
guiding stance,rather than an overtly directive stance or one in which the therapist follows the clientʼswishes.
When we consider the motivation of young people,itʼs important to remember that motivation canchange dramatically in a short period of time. Author Daniel Pink has described three levels of
motivation and named them as if they were software packages.M otivation 1.0,as he calls it,involves
survival. Human beings want to survive. M otivation 2.0 involves rewards and consequences. This isbecause although all human beings want to survive, we donʼt always behave as though we are
motivated entirely by this desire. After all, we all engage in behaviors, such as eating too much or
drinking too much, taking up smoking, driving dangerously, etc. Daniel Pink observed that many
people are motivated by rewards and consequences,but that rewards and consequences do not explain
all human motivation.He finds that if we only rely on these conceptualizations of motivation,we canactually make matters worse,and he argues on behalfofunderstanding somebodyʼs internal motivation
to change. He says, for example, that students who are praised for their intelligence are more likely
to engage in cheating and less likely to persist in academic pursuits than students who are praised fortheir efforts, that effort is a better internal motivation to tap than traits, such as intelligence, whichcannot be changed. This is similar to the work of Ryan and Deci, who have observed in selfdetermination theory that human beings tend to be motivated in the direction of greater autonomy,
greater competence,and a greater sense of connection to others.Ultimately in our treatment programs,
we should all work together to build willing partners in change.Effective treatment programs tap into
each clientʼs internal motivation to change and address treatment goals that are found in research tobe associated with future crime. Treatment should not be something that we do to young people;itshould be something that we do with young people.Ultimately the safest offender is somebody who has
a place to live, is connected to support people to whom he or she is accountable,has work or goes toschool, and has everything to lose by committing another crime.

III. TRAUMA AND THE BRAIN
Research over the past 25 years has left no doubt that maltreatment of children can have asignificant effect on their brain development.All too often young people who have been abused spend
more psychological energy simply trying to survive the abuse and to scan their environment for signsof threat and danger that they donʼt have an adequate chance to develop a more healthycuriosityabout
their life and the world around them. This simple fact is critical to understanding how young peoplewind up engaging in crime and how they can develop the hope that will prevent them from engaging
in crime in the future. These developmental insults lead to behavior problems quite frequently.
Emotional abuse, the loss of important emotional relationships, having caregivers who are impaired,being exposed to domestic violence and sexual abuse, neglect, and physical abuse can all have adramatic effect both on psychosocial development and on brain development. The key factor toconsider is the cumulative harm that takes place. It does not need to be the case that a young person
is violently abused in an egregious way on one occasion, but rather, daily neglect can add up tosignificant difficulties in neurological functioning. As some examples, there can be increased limbic
system irritability, heightening of a fight-flight-freeze response, decreased left hemisphere development. It can decrease the integration across the left and right hemispheres, and it can limit theactivation of the cerebellar vermis where a considerable amount of self-regulatory activity occurs.Allof these, of course, are big words and big ideas.

76

154TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
The central importance for our purposes is the knowledge that we can heal the brain throughdiverse activities such as exercise and other physical activities,practicing mindfulness ― whether thisbe in the form of meditation or group instruction on mindfulness,and through yoga.In fact,in a recent
unpublished study,researcher Bessel van der Kolk and his colleagues have found that practicing yoga
can make dramatic changes to the area of the brain associated with self-observation (also see van derKolk, 1994, 2012).
For our purposes of working with young people who break the law,it can be useful and instructive
to review the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder and ask ourselves in what ways we see thesefacts in the everyday functioning of young people.Letʼs remember that the traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in any one of the following ways: recurrent and intrusive distressing recollectionsof the event, including images, thoughts, or perceptions. In young children, this can include repetitiveplay in which themes or aspects of the trauma are expressed.It can also include recurrent distressing
dreams of the event,and in children there may be frightening dreams without anyrecognizable content.
This can become important when we remember that professionals in many treatment programs can be
frustrated by the fact that young people simply donʼt want to go to bed at night or that they mistake
professionals for truly abusive people that they have known.
PTSD also involves acting or feeling as if the traumatic event were recurring. It is very common
for kids who have been in trouble with the law to view their world as a dangerous,harsh,or punitive
place despite all of our attempts to demonstrate otherwise.PTSD also involves intense psychologicaldistress at exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic
event. Again,our clients often live with different perspective from our own,and it is unreasonable for
us to expect that they will change their perspective on the world quickly when they have had suchdevastating evidence to the contrary. PTSD often involves efforts to avoid thoughts, feelings, orconversations associated with the trauma.It is,therefore,no surprise that our clients frequentlyengage
in drug and alcohol abuse. They engage in efforts to avoid activities, places, or people that arouserecollection of the trauma, and very often they have an inability to recall important aspects of theirtrauma. When discussing crimes with young people, professionals frequently experience dismay that
their clients donʼt recall specific aspects of their own behavior. While it is often the case that young
people donʼt want to tell us everything we want them to,they still can genuinely forget many aspectsof traumatic behaviors that they have,themselves,engaged in. PTSD also involves marked diminishedinterest or participation in significant activities. Again,it is vital to recall that the shallow emotional
experience of our clientele can be a direct result of the traumatic experiences that they have had.

IV. HOW DO PEOPLE ACTUALLY CHANGE?
Ultimately, all treatment providers are challenged to consider:what are the active ingredients intreatment?Cognitive behavioral therapy emphasizes the importance of challenging distorted thinking
patterns, but is that what really gets people to change? Is it the fact that they complete assignments,that theyfollow the manual? Or,do people change as a result oftheir experiences and their discoveries?
Or,perhaps more specifically,do they change via a relationship experience where hope and possibility
are renewed or even born?
Across North America, treatment programs are increasingly looking at the importance of attachment. A problem that we have is that we often treat problems with attachment as mental disorders
rather than adaptations to abusive environments, and have very little research about what healthy
attachment styles actually look like. I believe that this is further complicated by the fact that many
people who provide treatment often have problems with relationships and attachments themselves.
This is not to any degree that is greater than in the general population,but it is important to recall that
we are attempting to build relationship capacity in young people when,very often,we ourselves have
limits in our abilities to form these most important relationships.It is vital to remember that all of ourclients come from challenging environments.
Another crucial element of treatment programs that is neurologically based is the idea of empathic
attunement, the ability to engage in activities with others, to feel competent within interpersonal
relationships and to relate to others at an empathic level.Ultimately,empathic and attuned treatment

77

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 91
interventions will always be unexpected in the lives of young people. They will always be welcome.
They will almost always be impactful.What we need,in order to do this treatment,is an appropriate
mindset, an appropriate heart-set, the right spirit, the right attitude,and the right intention. Who weare when we walk into a room will be immediately apparent to our clients.When we enter a room ina spirit of acceptance and compassion,we are more likely to get further with our clients than we will
if we go in in a spirit of trying to fix things or to punish bad behavior.Ultimately,our efforts will bemost effective when we can remain compassionate. Miller and Rollnick, in their recent book on
motivational interviewing, have reintroduced the idea of compassion into effective interventions. In
their view,compassion involves advocating for the best interests of clients and being motivated at alllevels to address the treatment needs of our clients. Whereas empathy can be a cognitive concept,
compassion involves cognition,emotion,and behavior.Unfortunately,in North America,the politicalclimate has been anything but compassionate, often focusing on coercion, shame, blame, threats, orpunishment. Ultimately, however, we can leave no one behind.Neurological research reminds us thatcompassion, respect, a sense of social justice for all ― including our clients, prizing the differences
between all humans, remembering and respecting human potential, and collaboration are vital tosuccessful treatment.

V. REFERENCES
Andrews,D.A.,& Bonta,J.(2010).The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.).New Providence,NJ:
M atthew Bender.
Bem,D.J.(1972).Self-perception theory.In L.Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology, Volume 6, 2-62. New York:Academic Press.
Blanchard, G. (1995). The difficult connection. Brandon, VT:Safer Society.
Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 16, 252-260.
English,K.(1998).The Containment Approach:An aggressive strategy for the community managementof adult sex offenders. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 4, 218-235.
Furby, L., Weinrott, M ., & Blackshaw, L. (1989). Sex offender recidivism: A review. Psychological
Bulletin, 105, 3-30.
Hanson, R. K., Gordon, A., Harris, A. J. R., Marques, J. K., M urphy, W., Quinsey, V.L.,& Seto,M .C.
(2002). First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of treatment
for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 169-194.
Hojat, M ., Vergare, M .J., Maxwell, K., Brainerd, G., Herrine, S.K., Isenberg, GA., Veloski, J., and.
Gonnella,J.S.(2009).The devil is in the third year:A longitudinal studyofthe erosion ofempathy
in medical school. Academic Medicine, 84, 1182-1191.
Jenkins, A. (1990). Invitations to Responsibility. Adelaide, Australia:Dulwich Centre Publications.
Hettema, J., Steele, J. & M iller, W.R. (2005). Motivational interviewing. Annual Review of ClinicalPsychology, 1, 91-111.
Losel, F., & Schmucker, M. (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders:A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 117-146.
M arques,J.K.,Wiederanders,M .,Day,D.M.,Nelson,C.,& van Ommeren,A.(2005).Effects of a relapse
prevention program on sexual recidivism:Final results from Californiaʼ
s Sex Offender Treatment and Evaluation Project (SOTEP).Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 17 (1),79-107.

78

154TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
M arshall, W. L. (2005). Therapist style in sexual offender treatment:Influence on indices of change.
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 17 (2), 109-116.
M arshall, W. L., & M arshall, L. E. (2007). The utility of the random controlled trial for evaluating
sexual offender treatment:The gold standard or an inappropriate strategy? Sexual Abuse: A
Journal of Research and Treatment, 19 , 175-191.
M iller,W.R.& Rollnick,S.(2013). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change,3d ed.New York:
Guilford.
Naar-King,S.(2010).Motivational interviewing with adolescents and young adults.New York:Guilford.
Norcross,J.C.(2010).The therapeutic relationship.In B.L.Duncan,S.D.Miller,B.E.Wampold,& M .A.
Hubble (Eds.), The heart and soul of change: Delivering what works in therapy, 2nd ed. (pp.
113-141). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.
Orlinsky, D. E., Ronnestad, M. H., Willutski, U. (2004). Fifty years of psychotherapy process-outcome
research:Continuity and change. In M. J. Lambert (Ed.)Handbook of psychotherapy and behaviour change (5th Ed.). New York:John Wiley & Sons.
Parhar, K. K., Wormith, J. S., Derkzen, D. M., & Beauregard, A. M . (2008). Offender coercion intreatment:A meta-analysis of effectiveness. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1109-1135.
Pennebaker, J. (1990). Opening up: The healing power of expressing emotions. New York: Guilford
Press.
Pink, D. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York:Riverhead Books.
Quinsey, V.L., Harris, G.T., Rice, M .E., & Cormier, C.A. (1998). Violent Offenders: Managing andAppraising Risk. Washington D.C.:American Psychological Association.
Salter, A. (1988). Treating child sex offenders and victims. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publishing.
Smith,P.,Goggin,C.,& Gendreau,P.(2002).The effects of prison sentences and intermediate sanctions
on recidivism: General effects and individual differences.(User Report 2002-01).Ottawa:Solicitor
General Canada.
Snyder, C. R., M ichael, S.T., & Cheavens, J.S. (1999). Hope as a psychotherapeutic foundation ofcommon factors,placebos,and expectancies.In M.A.Hubble,B.L.Duncan,& S.D.M iller (Eds.),
The heart and soul of change: What works in therapy (pp.179-200).Washington,DC:American
Psychological Association.
van der Kolk, B. (1994). The body keeps the score: Memory and the evolving psychobiology of
posttraumatic stress, Harvard Review of Psychiatry,1, 253-265.
van der Kolk,B.(2012,October).Frontiers in trauma treatment.Lecture at Kripalu,Stockbridge,M A.
Wilson, R.J., Cortoni, F., Picheca, J.E., Stirpe, T.S., & Nunes, K. (2012). Community-based sexual
offender maintenance treatment programming:An evaluation.［Research Report R-188］Ottawa,
ON:Correctional Service of Canada.
Worling,J.R.,& Curwen,T.(2001).The“
ERASOR:”Estimate ofRisk ofAdolescent Sexual Recidivism(Version 2.0). Toronto:Safe-T Program, Thistletown Regional Centre.

79