LSI-R:

Level of Service Inventory-Revised

Introductory training course:

1
Level of Services Inventory-Revised

Participant Manual

Much of the material contained within this manual has been adapted from the
work of William R. Miller, PH.D. and Stephen Rollnick, Ph.D Motivational
Interviewing (1999, 2002); Dr. Don Andrews and Dr. James Bonta, Psychology
of Criminal Conduct, Second Edition; Kathy Gibbs, Sally Kraemer and Kim
McIrwin, Iowa Department of Corrections, LSI-R training manual 2000, Jason
Anderson, Minnesota Dept of Corrections, LSI-R training manual 2012.

2
 Introductory LSI-R Training
Objectives

By the end of the training the participants will be

able to:

1. Understand the basic principles and theories

underlying the LSI-R.
2. Identify three principles of effective
interventions for correctional practice.
3. Identify the 4 biggest risk factors for future
criminal activity.
4. Have basic understanding of LSI-R scores and
how to respond to those scores.

3
 Introductory LSI-R Training

Agenda

INTRODUCTIONS:
• Introduction of the trainers and participants
• Agenda
• Housekeeping

CAR BUYING ACTIVITY

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY

• Cost vs. Rewards
• Additive vs. Subtractive
• Density
• Cost and Rewards Activity

IMPORTANCE OF ASSESSEMENTS

WHAT IS THE LSI-R

• Uses of LSI-R
• Sources of information
• What does it mean/how can it be used?

FUNDEMENTALS OF EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION

• Big 4 and Central 8 risk factors
• R-N-R principle

QUESTION/ANSWER

EVALUATION: WRAP UP

4
Effective Correctional Intervention

• Principles and Predictors

• Promising Targets for Change

• Predictors of Criminal Conduct

• The Big Four

• Social Learning Theory

5
 Principles of Effective Correctional Intervention
◘ Risk
◘ Need
◘ Responsivity
• Cognitive Behavioral
• Special Consideration
◘ Professional Override

The Risk Principle

◘ Offender risk should be matched to level of service.

◘ Higher levels of service should be reserved for high risk cases.

Treatment Effectiveness

Minimal Treatment Augmented Treatment

(Regular Supervision)

High Risk Probationers 75% Recidivated 33% Recidivated

Low Risk Probationers 7% Recidivated 14% Recidivated

6
 The Need Principle
When dynamic risk factors (criminogenic needs) are changed, there is a
subsequent decrease in the likelihood of further criminal behavior.

The Responsivity Principle

Match officer style and mode of intervention

to special offender characteristics

More on the Responsivity Principle:

Client Factors:

• Motivation (as a barrier)

• Engages in Denial and/or Minimization
• Interpersonally Anxious
• Cultural / Ethnicity Issues
• Communication Barriers
• Low Intelligence
• Leaning Disabled or Brain Injured

7
 Predictors of Criminal Conduct

Lower Class Origins

• Socioeconomic Characteristics of Neighborhood
• Signs of Parental Education / Occupation / Income

Family of Origin
• Long Term Reliance on Welfare
• Emotional Criminality in Close Relatives
• Multiple Psychological Handicaps
• Antisocial Attitudes
• Low levels of affection / cohesiveness in home
• Low levels of supervision / poor discipline in home
• Neglect / abuse

Personal Temperament and Early Behavioral History

• Restlessly energetic
• Impulsive
• Adventurous pleasure-seeking
• Taste for risk
• Below average verbal intelligence
• Response to frustration more likely to involve anger and
resentment
• Lack of conscientiousness
• Egocentrism
• Callousness
• Moral immaturity
• Poor problem solving / coping skills
• Childhood diagnosis of conduct disorder
• Early and generalized misconduct

8
School-Based Risk Factors

• Below average effort

• Lack of interest / being bored
• Not worrying about occupational future
• Conduct problems
• Poor schools (low caring, low structure)

Educational / Vocational / Socioeconomic Achievement

• Low level of achieved education
• Long periods of unemployment
• Reliance on welfare

Interpersonal Relationships
• Generalized indifference to the opinions of others
• Unstable marital history
• Rejected / rejecting

Social Support for Crime

• Association with antisocial / drug using others
• Isolation from non-criminal others

Personal Attitudes/Values/Beliefs Supportive of Crime

• High tolerance for deviance in general
• Rejection of the validity of the law
• Rationalizes law violations of a wide variety
• Interprets a wide range of stimuli as reasons for anger,
resentment and/or defiance
• Generally, thinking style and content is antisocial

9
Behavioral History
• Criminal history – Juvenile and Adult
• Alcohol and drug abuse
• Aimless use of leisure time
• Disorganized lifestyle

Personal Distress / Psychopathology

• High scores on measures of antisocial personality /
psychopathy
• Active Psychosis with delusions
• Psychological signs of anxiety, worry, depression, low self-
esteem and sociological signs of anomie, alienation,
normlessness, powerlessness and isolation.

Other Risk Factors

• Being male
• Being young
• Being a member of some minority groups

Andrews and Bonta (1994): UNB/CU

(Gendreau, Coggin, Chanteloupe)

1. Lower Class Origins .06 (97)

2. Personal Distress / Psychopathology .08 (226)

3. Personal Educational achievement .12 (129)

4. Personal / Family Factors .18 (334)

5. Temperament/Misconduct/personality .21 (621)

6. Antisocial Attitudes/Associates .22 (168)

10
 Mean Correlation between Different Types of
Potential Correlates of Criminal Conduct by Gender

Risk Factor Male Female

Lower Class Origins .04 (58) .03 (12)

Personal Distress / .09 (157) .08 (19)

Psychopathology

Personal Education / .11 (96) .13 (7)

Vocational Achievement

Parental / Family Factors .16 (180) .16 (43)

Temperamental / .18 (461) .23 (38)

Misconduct / Personality

Antisocial Attitudes / .21 (113) .23 (12)

Associates

Overall .16 (1065) .16 (131)

11
 UNB: Adult Offender Record
T. Little and P. Gendreau (1995)

1. Lower Class Origins .06 (24)

2. Personal Distress .05 (64)

3. Lower Intelligence .07 (31)

4. Family of Origin .11 (76)

5. Parenting Factors .15 (27)

6. Personal Educational Achievement .15 (154)

7. Criminogenic Need .16 (175)

8. History of Antisocial Behavior .16 (245)

9. Antisocial Personality .18 (62)

10. Antisocial Companions .18 (27)

11. Antisocial Attitudes .19 (29)

12. Composite Risk Scales .30 (123)

13. Age / Race / Gender .14 (94)

12
 The “BIG FOUR”
► History of Antisocial Behavior

► Antisocial Attitudes

► Antisocial Associates

► Antisocial Personality Pattern

13
 14 Promising Targets for Change
1. Changing antisocial attitudes.
2. Changing/managing antisocial feelings.
3. Reducing antisocial peer associations.
4. Promoting familial affection/communication.
5. Promoting familial monitoring and supervision.
6. Promoting child protection (preventing abuse).
7. Promoting identification/association with anti-criminal role
models.
8. Increasing self-control, self-management, and problem solving
skills.
9. Replacing the skills of lying, stealing and aggression with pro-
social alternatives.
10. Reducing chemical dependencies and substance abuse
11. Shifting the density of personal, interpersonal and other
rewards and costs for criminal and non-criminal activities in
familial, academic, vocational, recreational, and other
behavioral settings so that the non-criminal alternatives are
favored.
12. Providing the chronically mentally ill with low pressure,
sheltered living arrangements and/or effective medication.
13. Insuring the Client is able to recognize risky situations and has
a concrete, well-rehearsed plan for dealing with them.
14. Confronting the personal and circumstantial barriers to service
(i.e., motivation).

14
 7 Less Promising Targets for Change

1. Increasing self-esteem (without simultaneously reducing

antisocial thinking, feelings, and peer association).

2. Focusing on vague Emotional/Personal complaints that are

not linked with criminal conduct.

3. Increasing cohesiveness of antisocial peer groups.

4. Improving neighborhood-wide living conditions without

touching the criminogenic needs of higher risk individuals
and families.

5. Showing respect for antisocial thinking on the grounds that

the values of one culture are as equally valid as the values
of another culture (when a culture holds criminal values that
harm others.)

6. Increasing conventional ambition in areas of school and

work without concrete assistance in realizing these
ambitions.

7. Attempting to turn the client into a “better person” when

the standards for being a “better person” are not linked with
recidivism.

15
 Components of the LSI-R

1. Criminal History 10 Items

2. Education / Employment 10 Items
3. Financial 2 Items
4. Family / Marital 2 Items
5. Accommodation 3 Items
6. Leisure / Recreation 2 Items
7. Companions 5 Items
8. Alcohol / Drug Problems 9 Items
9. Emotional / Personal 5 Items
10. Attitude / Orientation 4 Items

Information is collected through:

1) An interview with the client

2) Collateral verification
3) Review of case records

16
 Social Learning Theory

Social Learning Theory

An Individual will behave according to the cost and benefits

associated with the particular behavior they choose to engage in.
For example, a criminal act will be committed when the person
believes the rewards for the action will outweigh the costs.

The central causal variable of criminality is the “variation in

signaled rewards and costs for criminal and non-criminal behavior”.
Strategies such as modeling, graduated practice, reinforcement,
extinction, etc are tied to the “cost/reward” model. This is why
employing behavioral social learning and cognitive behavioral
strategies are much more effective in reducing criminal behavior
than sanctions.

Types of Rewards & Costs

Costs and rewards may be additive or subtractive. Additive

outcomes or events involve something being added to the
environment, while subtractive outcomes or events involve
something being withdrawn from the environment.

• An Additive Reward would typically be described as:

Pleasure.

• A Subtractive Reward would typically be described as:

Relief.

• An Additive Cost would typically be described as:

Pain.

• A Subtractive Cost would typically be described as:

Disappointment or frustration.

17
Where rewards and costs come from:

• Personal – This consists of self-talk, imaginings and

visualizations. Content of these thought processes can be
supportive or non-supportive of criminal behavior based on the
attitudes, values, beliefs and cognitions of the individual.

• Interpersonal – The modeling of others and the reactions of

others to particular acts. The major indicator of whether
interpersonally mediated influences will be favorable or unfavorable
to crime is in an assessment of what we call “antisocial associates”
and the degree of isolation from pro-social associates.

• Non-mediated – Automatic outcomes that result in a reward or

cost without personal or interpersonal mediation. For example, the
buzz from alcohol or the removal of an obstacle by being
aggressive, especially if there is a history of engagement in these
activities.

xDensity of Rewards or Costs:

The number, strength, and variety of consequences as well as the

immediacy, regularity, and frequency with which rewards or costs
are delivered.

To Decrease Chances of Crime

Rewards Costs

Criminal (-) (+)

Anti-Criminal (+) (-)

18
 REWARDS COSTS

Additive Subtractive Additive Subtractive

(Pleasure) (Relief) (Pain) (Disappoint-
ment)

Personal

Inter-
personal

Non-
mediated

(Community

Reinforcement)

19
 Highlights of the
Advantages of the LSI

1. Relatively simple to use. The scoring follows a simple 0-1

format and collects much of the same information already
collected in most offender interviews.

2. LSI appears to “work”. Research based upon different types of

offenders from different settings repeatedly show that the
instrument can differentiate offender risk level. Changes in LSI
scores have been associated with changes in recidivism
supporting the use of the LSI for rehabilitation programming.

3. Comprehensive. The LSI includes both historical criminal

history and offender needs information. Most of the major
areas found related to criminal conduct are covered.

4. Empirically rational. The basis for making supervision and

treatment decision are objective and readily observable. At the
same time, there is room for professional judgment through
the inclusion of an over-ride factor.

5. Staff professionalism. Conducting good LSI assessments

require training and a professional commitment to get to know
and try to help the offender. Social interaction and as sound
professional judgment in developing a program for the
offender. The use of the LSI commits the correctional work to
reach beyond the traditional role of monitoring the offender
and to become a correctional “interventionist”.

20
Appendix

21
 LSI-R and Probation Outcome (%)
Terminations Supervising Recidivism
Rating
LSI Early Regular Success Fail New Multiple Prison
Score Convictions

24+ 0.0 100.0 50.0 50.0 75.0 66.7 58.3

12 – 23 29.4 70.6 65.5 34.5 48.5 37.5 50.0

8 – 11 45.0 55.0 85.0 15.0 16.7 12.5 25.0

0–7 56.4 43.6 93.3 6.7 7.8 0.0 0.0

(From Andrews, 1982)

Percent Success in Halfway

Houses by LSI-R Scores
LSI-R Score

Group 0–7 8 – 11 12 – 23 24+

First Sample (75) 94.4 (18) 78.6 (14) 67.6 (37) 33.3 (6)

Second Sample (89) 95.0 (19) 100.0 (19) 75.0 (40) 70.0 (10)

Note: Number of subjects in parentheses

(from Bonta & Motiuk, 1985)

22
 Percent Reincarcerated by LSI-R
Scores (Halfway House Residents)
LSI-R Score

Group 0–7 8 – 11 12 – 23 24+

First Sample (72) 11.1 (18) 8.3 (12) 33.3 (36) 66.7 (6)

Second Sample (76) 0.0 (16) 12.5 (16) 23.5 (34) 40.0 (10)

Note: Number of subjects in parentheses

(from Bonta & Motiuk, 1985)

LSI-R and Halfway House Outcome

Successful (%)

LSI-R Score Study 1 Study 2

21 + 52.8 62.5

15 – 20 77.8 81.8

0 – 14 92.3 92.5

All Residents 73.3 84.1

23
 Diversion of Inmates to
Halfway Houses
LSI-R
Administered and Scored
by Classification

LSI-R Score LSI-R Score LSI-R Score

14 or less 16 - 20 21 or over

Review Board 1. Possible Halfway House 1. Medium Security

2. Minimum Security 2. Maximum Security

Halfway House

Diversion of Inmates to Halfway House

Comparison of LSI-R Identified Halfway House Placements with
Non-Identified Placements

LSI-R Non-
Identified (24) Identified (18)
Days in House 1,975 671
Mean Days* 82.3 39.5
# Serving > 90 8 (33/3%) 2 (11.0%)
Days*
Successful 22 (91.7%) 17 (94.4%)
Residents

*Successful Residents Only

24
 Outcome for
Low-Scoring Inmates (%)
Halfway House Parole Rate
Institution Placement Success House Prison

Jail 1 64.7 100 86 80

Jail 2 41.7 100 100 70

Jail 3 16.4 100 80 88

Total 30.4 100 89 83

Note: LSI-R score 14 or less (from Bonta & Motiuk, 1990)

Summary of Success Rates for Halfway House

Residents with LSI Scores of 14 or Less
Study N f Success
Rate

Bonta & Motiuk (1982) 115 106 92.2%

Bonta & Motiuk (1987)
Sample 1 12 12 100.0%
Sample 2 24 22 91.75%
Bonta & Motiuk (1990) 31 31 100.0%

TOTAL 182 171 94.0%

25
 Violent Behavior and LSI-R Risk
Level (Institution Only)

LSI-R Score
0–7 8 – 11 12 – 23 24+

% Misconduct 4.5 3.0 34.8 57.6

% Assault 0.0 3.4 37.9 58.6

Total Sample Size = 123

(from Bonta, Motiuk, and Ker, 1985)

LSI-R and Institutional

Security Placement
Security Level

LSI-R Score Minimum Medium Maximum Total (%)

37 + (Max.) 5 29 13 47 (11.1)

25 – 36 (Med.) 42 117 31 190 (44.8)

0 – 24 (Min.) 59 108 20 187 (44.1)

Total (%) 106 (25) 254 (59.9) 64 (15.1) 424

(from Bonta & Motuik, 1992)

26
 Changes in LSI-R Risk Levels
and Recidivism
Retest Risk Level

Intake Risk Low Moderate High Very High Overall N

Level
Very High -- -- 50% 100% 75% (4)
High (12-23) -- 0% 27% 100% 41% (22)
Moderate (8-11) 0% 33% 40% -- 27% (11)
Low (0-7) 0% 0% 0% 100% 5% (20)

N (19) (10) (14) (9) (57)

(from Andrews & Robinson, 1984)

Recidivism Rates and Changes in

LSI-R Risk Level
Retest Risk Level
Intake Risk Level Low High Overall

Low 18.2 (4/22) 25.0 (1/4) 19.2

High 20.0 (1/5) 52.2 (12/23) 46.4

Overall 18.5 (5/27) 48.1 (13/27) 33.3

(from Motiuk, 1993)

27
 LSI-R and Recidivism
80 76

57.3
% Recidivated

60
48.1

40 31.1

20 11.7

0
0 - 13 14 - 23 24 - 33 34 - 40 41+
LSI-R Scores N=956 (Male Inmates)

Success in Halfway Houses:

Comparing Classification Systems
System % CC % CIF % RIOC

Dynamic
LSI-R 65.7 87.0 73.4
Wisconsin 56.9 65.2 30.4
Static
SIR (Canada) 62.7 82.6 63.8
SFS (U.S.) 56.9 826.6 58.7
Illinois 61.8 82.6 63.0
Pennsylvania 58.8 76.9 45.7
Note:
CC = Correctly Classified
CIF = Correctly Classified Failures
RIOC = Relative Improvement Over Chance (from Motiuk, 1993)

28
 LSI-R and Female Recidivism
(Female Provincial)
80

60
%
Re-arrested
40

20

0
0-7 8 - 13 14 - 20 21 - 28 29+

LSI-R Scores (from Coulson, 1993)

Predictive Validity of LSI-R by Race

Outcome
LSI-R Misconduct PV Incarceration
N N-N N N-N N N-N

A. Criminal History .26* .25* .69*** .42** .41** .53***

B. Education/Empl. .26* .22* .36 .35* .28* .39***
C. Financial .03 .18 .16 .40** .17 .26**
D. Family Marital .25* .22* .05 .15 .06 .02
E. Accommodation .25* .11 .29 .29* .12 .21*
F. Leisure .12 .09 .08 .02 .04 .16
G. Companions .03 .07 .18 .19 .09 .25*
H. Alcohol./Drugs .05 .20** .58** .20 .38** .24*
I. Emotional/Pers. .01 .03 .03 .36* .04 .12
J. Attitude/Orient. .08 .28** .29 .17 .14 .24*
Total LSI-R Score .26* .31** .51** .46** .35** .50**

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Notes: PV = Parole Violation
N = Native, N-N = Non-Native (from Bonta, 1989)

29
 Other Uses for the LSI-R
• Developing treatment plans
• Monitoring offender risk
• Identifying offenders for the least restrictive
sanction
– Halfway house
– Minimum probation supervision
– Parole release
– Less secure institution placement

Second District Day Program Center

Unsuccessful Completion and Follow-up
LSI-R Scores
70 65
60 53.2
50
50 45.5
Percent
40 33
Program 30.3
30
19.1
Failures 20 17.9
9.1
10 3.8
0
0 - 13 14 - 23 24 - 33 34 - 40 41+
LSI-R Follow-up Scores

30
 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS ON THE LSI
James Bonta

October 1993

This paper provides only a summary of the research on the LSI. Detailed
descriptions of the methodology and results can be found in the original
research publication. Copies of these reports are available by writing:

James Bonta
1359 Dowler Avenue
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
K1H 7R8

A Summary of Research Findings on the LSI

Research on the LSI spans nearly 15 years of study and has involved
thousands of offenders. Originally developed for use with probationers in the
province of Ontario, subsequent studies have found the LSI relevant for other
types of offenders in different criminal justice settings. Investigators have
reported similar findings with adult male and female inmates (Bonta & Motiuk,
1992; Coulson, 1993), correctional halfway house placements (Bonta & Motiuk,
1990), aboriginal inmates (Bonta, 1989) and using a modification of the LSI,
with child welfare cases (Andrews, Robinson & Balla, 1986) and young
offenders (Shields, 1993). In addition, recent research from U.S. jurisdictions
(Colorado) has also shown the LSI to predict future offending behavior.

The present paper provides a general introduction to the research dealing with
the LSI. This paper follows the studies beginning with the development of the
instrument in a probation and parole setting to the use of the LSI in the
selection of inmates for halfway house placement and finally to its use in
institutions. The presentation is non-technical and gives only the approach
taken in a study and the major findings. For those interested in the actual
technical reports, a bibliography is attached t\at the end of the paper.

What is the LSI?

31
The Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI) is a way of systematically bringing
together risk and needs information important to offender treatment planning
and for assigning levels of freedom and supervision. Many times, people
working with offenders are guided by their “intuition”, “gut feeling” and
professional judgment based on their knowledge and experience with
offenders. The use of professional judgment is important and should not be
dismissed. However, objective risk-needs offender assessment instruments
have some advantages over professional judgment approaches to offender
assessment which will soon become apparent.
First, a few general comments about the way the LSI is set up or structured.
By examining the record form we can make the following general observations:
1) The LSI collects 54 pieces of information ranging from criminal history
to attitudes toward supervision. This information is gathered on
everyone interviewed. By tapping on a wide range of variables, the
LSI recognizes that there are many possible factors associated with
criminal behavior. Collecting a more limited set of information is
naturally going to miss factors important to the individual. In addition,
because each offender is assessed on the same variables and these
variables are scored the same way (i.e., objective assessment),
favoritism of bias about what questions are asked and how the
answers are scored is minimized. Such a broad survey of factors not
only benefits the offender by considering the person “in total” but also
serves to promote sound case management since the case worker can
show his or her manager, or anyone else, that a comprehensive
assessment of the offender was undertaken.
2) The items of the LSI are scores fairly simple. There are no fancy
weighting formulas that run the risk of making computational errors.
Further, research comparing simple scoring methods like the 0-1
format with more statistically complex methods show the simple
approach is as valid as the more complex procedures.
3) The items are grouped into categories or what we refer to as
“subcomponents”. The subcomponents help the case worker identify
especially problematic areas in the offender’s life that require
attention.
4) Many of the subcomponents consist of items that are changeable or
“dynamic”. This is a very important concept if the role of case worker
is to do more than “supervise” an offender but also to bring about a
change. These dynamic factors are actually risk factors and by
reducing the number of dynamic risk variables we are more likely to
see a reduction in the probability of future criminal activity. In this
way, many of the LSI items and subcomponents act as treatment
targets.
5) There is a professional over-ride section. Although the LSI is fairly
comprehensive, the correctional worker is likely to meet some
offenders who do not seem to quite fit or have some feature out of
32
 the ordinary. Here the interviewer can write the reasons why a
particular offender should be placed in either a higher or lower risk
category then designated by the LSI.
6) Finally, and not really seen on the LSI record form, is a reminder that
completing the form does not depend only on what the offender tells
the interviewer. Many offenders may misrepresent their situation
either on purpose or unintentionally (e.g., poor memory for an event).
Interviewers are required to confirm as much as possible the
information provided by the offender by reviewing official records
and/or interviewing others familiar with the offender in order to
confirm the offender’s representations.

The Development of the LSI

The LSI was developed through numerous consultations around what

information should be collected, exactly how it would be done, and how the
results of this information would be presented. Prior to the LSI, probation
officers interviewed probationers and family members, reviewed police reports,
phoned employers and others who knew the offender. What questions were
asked and what information was recorded was guided by general procedural
manuals and legal requirements. After collecting the information, the probation
officer usually wrote a narrative report describing the offender, his or her social
situation and the circumstances surrounding the offence with recommendations
for supervision and treatment.
Probation workers and managers recognized that this traditional approach to
offender assessment had two basic weaknesses. First, it was an uneven
approach. The same offender could be treated quite differently by different
probation officers. There was too much discretion on what information was to
be collected and how it was reported. Second, it was unclear as to how the
recommendation for the level of supervision was actually derived. That is, on
what basis was a probationer assigned a high or low supervision status?
Don Andrews, a professor at Carleton University, led discussions with probation
officers and managers in designing a new classification instrument that was
objective, comprehensive, simple to use and reflected the offender’s treatment
needs and risk level.
Probation services in Ontario were based upon a rehabilitation model and the
probation officer’s role was to provide treatment services to the offender. The
consultation exercises were guided by both a social learning perspective of
criminal behaviour and the research literature on criminal behaviour. It was
important that the information to be collected made sense (i.e., theoretically
relevant) and that it was empirically supported. There was no room for
unsubstantiated hunches and notions about what information was truly
relevant to case management.

33
The result of the consultations was the LSI but the first version was over 50
pages long! Subsequent revisions reduced the LSI to the present two page
format. An interview/scoring guide was also written to give some structure to
collections and scoring the information. The LSI was now ready to be tested.

The Research Studies

Probation
In 1979, the LSI was routinely administered to 598 probationers in the Ottawa
area. The research examined inter-rater reliability (i.e., how well LSI
classifications matched when they were completed by different officers), officer
satisfaction with the results, and whether the LSI scores were related to the
types of outcomes important to correctional management (e.g., continued
criminal activity). The major findings were as follows:
1. The systematic and structured approach to collecting and scoring
the information produced good agreements among probation
officers. This means, for example, that two correctional workers
who assess the offender independently from each other are going
to record the same types of information and reach the same
general conclusions about risk level and treatment needs.
2. Probation officers agreed with the LSI assigned risk level in 90% of
the cases. That is, the LSI was a fairly accurate reflection of the
professional judgment of probation officers.
3. Failure on probation was significantly related to LSI scores. The
higher the LSI score, the greater the probability of failure on
probation. For example, only 7.8% of probationers with LSI scores
of seven or less were reconvicted of a new offence; probationers
with scores of 24 or more had a reconviction rate of 75%.
4. LSI scores predicted the number and seriousness of new offenses.
No probationer with a score of seven or less was convicted of
multiple offenses. However, at the other extreme, 66.7% of
probationers with scores of 24 or more had multiple reconvictions.
Similarly, the higher the score the more likely the courts would
give a sentence of incarceration reflecting the seriousness of the
new offenses.
By all accounts, the LSI appeared to perform well. Well enough that the
Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services adopted the LSI as the classification
instrument for probation and parole services. Today it is used in the Province
to assess over 20,000 probationers each year.

34
 Re-assessments of the LSI

We noted earlier that one of the features of the LSI was the inclusion of items
and subcomponents. For the correctional worker, this is an important feature
of the instrument. It means that some of the areas that are measured by the
LSI can serve as rehabilitation goals. These rehabilitation goals are not just
treatment targets in the traditional sense of helping people feel better about
themselves and others. The treatment targets suggested by the LSI are the
need areas that are related to criminal behaviour.
From a research perspective, the importance of the LSI in directing services
would be demonstrated if links can be shown between changes in LSI scores
and changes in criminal behaviour. Such a demonstration was provided in a
study by Andrews and Robinson (1984). Intake LSI’s and one year
reassessments were available for a sample of 57 probationers. At
reassessment, 32 probationers remained in the same risk category that they
were assigned at intake. Essentially, nothing much appeared to have changed
in the lives of these people over a one year period. However things had
changed for 25 probationers (at least as measured by the LSI). For 15
probationers, the situation appeared worse; LSI risk level increased as
reassessment. For the remaining 10 probationers, risk level decreased.
The information just provided can be interpreted in many different ways. For
example, do the changes in LSI scores simply reflect measurement instability
in the LSI? Are the reassessments more accurate because the probation officer
knows the client better? We would probably answer “yes” to these questions.
Any measurement instrument will have some instability inherent in it; no
measure is perfect. Also, of course, knowing more about the offender will lead
to better assessments.
However, this study also collected reconviction information at least six months
after the reassessment. Andrews and Robinson found that the changes in LSI
scores went hand-in-hand with changes in reconviction rates. Where LSI scores
decreased at reassessment, so did the reconviction rate. In other words, a
reduction in the dynamic needs measured by the LSI was associated with less
criminal activity. Likewise, increases in LSI scores were found associated with
increases in recidivism. No change in scores showed no up or down movement
in the recidivism of probationers. This study provides support for the “dynamic
validity” of the LSI and the importance of identifying the criminogenic needs of
offenders and providing effective programs to deal with these needs.

The Halfway House Studies

Many North American prison systems are plagued with overcrowding. Reducing
overcrowding has both humanitarian and economic benefits and although most
would agree that reducing prison use is worthwhile, achieving this goal is

35
difficult. One general approach in reducing incarcerated populations begins
with asking the question: “is imprisonment necessary for everybody who is in
prison?” Another way of posing this question is to say: “Are all prisoners high
risk offenders needing a prison setting to control them?”
In a series of studies conducted in the 1980’s we used the LSI to answer these
questions. Two early studies, one replicating the other, involved administering
the LSI to inmates who were transferred to halfway houses. These inmates fell
across a wide range of LSI scores. Some were in the medium and high risk
ranges, which we expected because they came form a maximum security
setting, but some inmates were in the minimum risk category. When the
inmates placed in the halfway houses were followed-up, it was clear that LSI
scores were related to success in the houses. In fact, offenders with low scores
(0-14) had success rates in the 92-94% range. These two early studies showed
that there were low risk offenders in prison that could safely be placed in
halfway houses and the studies also demonstrated that the usefulness and
validity of the LSI was not limited to probation samples.
In another study, the LSI was administered to a representative sample of
inmates in a Detention Centre and approximately 34% had scores between 0
and 14. We expected that many of these inmates would be identified by the
normal classification process and selected for placement into a halfway house.
However, only a third were classified for community placement. The other two-
thirds remained in prison until the expiry of their sentences or until they were
paroled. Obviously, the existing classification system failed to identify “good
bets” for halfway house placement.
Recognizing an opportunity to improve the classification process to yield a
fairer system and increase the use of community placements, a subsequent
study added the LSI to the standard classification procedure. Over a one year
period, classification staff in a Detention Centre completed their classification
interview, as they have always done, and also scored the LSI. Reports from
classification staff were that doing the LSI only added another five minutes to
their workload. Much of the information usually collected in the classification
interview was the same information required to complete an LSI. The only
major difference with the LSI was the information was organized in an
objective and quantifiable manner. Classification staff was also asked to refer
all inmates with LSI scores of 0 to 14 to the halfway house review board.
That’s all – the Board was under no obligation to place these inmates into a
halfway house. However, each low scoring inmate now had a chance to be
reviewed and not passed over by the more traditional classification interview.
This study found that of the 270 inmates tested, 41 or approximately 15% of
the sentenced, prison population in a Detention Centre scored in the 0 to 14
range on the LSI. Nearly 60% of them were placed into a community residence
and 92% were successful. Although the number of transfers of low risk
offenders to halfway houses did not increase, the amount of time spent in the
community more than doubled. That is, using the LSI identified low risk
offenders earlier in their sentences so that they could be quickly placed in the
community.
36
Perhaps the best example of using the LSI to produce a real change in
identifying lower risk inmates of community placement is a study directly
comparing traditional classification procedures with LSI classification over a six
month period, two Detention Centres scored LSI’s at the end of the
classification interview and referred low scoring inmates (0 to 14) to the
halfway house review board. The researchers also checked to see if there were
any differences in the characteristics of the inmates from the three Detention
Centres. After reviewing approximately 150 variables such as criminal history,
offence type, substance abuse, employment, etc., no systematic differences in
the types of offenders form the different institutions were found.
This is an important point. It means that if we observe any differences in how
the inmates from the three institutions are classified, the differences cannot be
explained by the type of offender; it has to be how they are classified. And,
since the only difference in classification procedure was whether or not they
used the LSI, the results could be attributed to the different classification
procedures.
The main result from this study was as follows:
- For the institutions using the LSI, 51% of low scoring inmates were
transferred to a halfway house
- For the institution not using the LSI, only 16% of low scoring inmates
were transferred.

The results clearly showed that the use of the LSI for identification of low risk
inmates was enough to make a real difference. The institutions using the LSI
had a community placement rate more than three times greater than the rate
for the institution using more traditional classification.

37
 Further Applications
The LSI is based upon a social learning theory of criminal behaviour which
means it tries to explain criminal conduct regardless of the setting (e.g.,
prisoners, probationers), the offence (e.g., violent offender, white collar
criminals) and the person (e.g., male offenders, juveniles, females). Therefore,
we would expect the LSI, or derivatives of the LSI, to function in much the
same way regardless of setting, offence type, and person.
It takes a great many studies to confirm the validity of the LSI across so many
situations and people. Chances are that we will come across some cases or
situations that do not fit very well. At that point modifications to the
instrument and/or the theory will be necessary. However, the research so far
has been encouraging.
We have seen that the LSI, first developed and tested in probation, applies
equally well with inmates placed into halfway houses. That is, the LSI predicted
outcomes in probation and in halfway houses. Other studies have also shown
LSI scores to predict outcomes important to prison management. In three
separate studies LSI scores predicted institutional misconducts and assaults.
This knowledge is useful for identifying inmates who may need maximum
security and inmates who may be placed in minimum and medium security
settings. Bonta and Motiuk (1992) found that almost 38% of inmates were
over classified. Considering the fact that much of prison overcrowding is found
in maximum security settings, the LSI can be used to help place people in less
secure prison settings.
Finally, the major findings reported in this paper have now been replicated
among a number of different offender groups extending the generality of the
classification instrument. These groups include:
- young offenders between the ages 12-15 (male and female)
- young offenders between the ages 16-18 (male and female)
- Aboriginal offenders (male)
- Mentally disordered offenders (male)
- Adult female offenders
- Serious federally sentenced offenders
Hopefully, further research will add to this list.

38
 References

Andrews, D.A. (1982). The Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI): The first follow-up.
Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.

Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J.L., Motiuk, L.L. & Robinson, D. Some psychometrics of practical
risk/needs assessment in corrections. Paper presented at the 92nd Annual Convention for
the American Psychological Association, Toronto, August, 1986.

Andrews, D.A., Kiessling, J. J., Mickus, S., & Robinson, D. (1985). The Level of Supervision
Inventory: Risk/needs assessment in community corrections. Carleton University, Ottawa.

Andrews, D.A., Kiessling, J.J., Mickus, S., & Robinson, D. (1986). The construct validity of
interview-based risk assessment in corrections. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 18
460-470.

Andrews, D.A., Kiessling, J.J., Robinson, D., & Mickus, S. (1986). The risk principle of case
classification: An outcome evaluation with young adult probationers. Canadian Journal of
Criminology, 28, 377-396.

Andrews, D.A., & Robinson, D. (1984). The Level of Supervision Inventory: Second report. A
report to Research Services (Toronto) of the Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.

Andrews, D.A., Robinson, D., & Balla, M. (1986). The risk principle of case classification and
the prevention of residential placements: An outcome evaluation of Share the Parenting.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 203-207.

Bonta, J. (1981). Predictions of success in Community Resource Centres. Paper presented at

the 34th Annual Convention of the Ontario Psychological Association, Toronto.

Bonta, J. (1989). Native inmates: Institutional response, risk, and needs. Canadian Journal of
Criminology 31, 49-62.

Bonta, J., & Andrews, D.A. (1993). The Level of Supervision Inventory: An overview IARCA
Journal, 5 (4), 6-8.

Bonta, J., & Higginbottom, S. (1991). Parole risk prediction: A pilot project. Poster presented
at the 121st Congress of the American Corrections Association, Minneapolis.

Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L.L. (1982). Assessing incarcerated offenders for halfway house.
Unpublished report, Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre, Ottawa.

Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L.L. (1985). Utilization of an interview-based classification instrument: A
study of correctional halfway houses. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 12, 333-352.

Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L. L. (1986). Use of the Level of Supervision Inventory for assessing
incarcerates. Paper presented as the 94th Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association, Washington, D.C.

Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L.L. (1987). The diversion of incarcerated offenders to correctional halfway
houses. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24, 302-323.

Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L.L. (1990). Classification to correctional halfway houses: A quasi-
experimental evaluation. Criminology, 28, 497-506.

39
Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L.L., (1992). Inmate classification . Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 343-
353.

Coulson, G. (1993). Using the Level of Supervision Inventory in placing female offenders in
rehabilitation programs or halfway houses. IARCA Journal, 5 (4), 12-13.

Motiuk, L.L., (1993). Using LSI and other classification systems to predict halfway house
outcome. IARCA Journal, 5 (4), 8-9.

Motiuk, L.L. (1991). Antecedents and consequences of prison adjustment: A systematic

assessment and reassessment approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa,
Ottawa.

Motiuk, L.L., & Bonta, J. (1991). Prediction and matching in correction: An examination of the
risk principle in case classification. Paper presented at the Canadian Psychological
Association annual Conference, Calgary , Alberta.

Motiuk, L.L., Bonta, J., & Andrews, D.A. (1986). Classification in correctional halfway houses:
The relative and incremental predictive criterion validities of the Megargee-MMPI and LSI
systems. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 13, 33-46.

Motiuk, M.S., Motiuk, L.L., & Bonta, J. (1992). A comparison between self-report and
interview-based inventories in offender classification. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19,
143-159.

Motiuk, L.L., Bonta, J., & Andrews, D.A. (1990). Dynamic predictive criterion validity in
offender assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Canadian
Psychological Association, (Poster). Ottawa.

Shields, I.W. (1991). The Young Offender Level of Service Inventory as a predictor of
recidivism: A one year follow-up study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Canadian Psychological association, Calgary, Alberta.

Shields, I.W. (1993). The use of the Young Offender – Level of Service Inventory with
adolescents. IARCA Journal, 5 (4), 10, 26.

Shields, I.W., & Simourd, D.J. (1991). Predicting predatory behavior in population of
incarcerated young offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18, 180-194.

40
 Responsivity: The Key to Understanding &
Maximizing Offender Change

By Peter Philbrick, M.A., LPC., Clinical Director – Com-Cor., Inc., 3615 Roberts
Rd., Colorado Springs, CO 80907 – (719) 473-4460
One of the challenges of working with offenders is effectively managing or
intervening with an unmotivated individual who is in denial and would rather
fight than switch. Maybe most of the offenders you manage are not like that,
but for the rest of us it is a tough proposition. Even those offenders, who seem
to be motivated and want to change, end up failing. Do you ever get tired of
seeing the same individual over and over again? Have you ever failed at a diet
or starting an exercise program? Change follows the same process whether it
involves criminal behavior or changing your eating habits. What follows will
give the correctional worker some new ideas about how to think about and
manage change.
This paper shall provide a brief outline of the presentation given at the 1999
ICCA Conference. It will provide an overview of how people change. All change
is governed by principals that are active, regardless of the problem. Within that
overview, issues of Responsivity will be addressed. Responsivity represents
adjustments in the management or treatment of the offender based on
offender characteristics. Finally, there shall be a brief discussion of Motivational
Interviewing, which is an approach and a series of techniques that can be used
as a general strategy to manage Responsivity issues to maximize offender
change.
At its most basic level, change takes place when a person is: Ready, Willing,
And Able to change. If anyone of these elements is missing, change cannot
take place, in intervening with offenders, each one of these areas can be
stumbling blocks. Readiness to change involves a process of understanding
that you have a problem and beginning to deal with the ambivalence around
the problem. Willingness is the choosing part – I choose to change. Ableness
is having the resources, either internal (skills) or external (i.e., friends, support
or treatment) to take action to change.
Ambivalence is a normal part of life. The feeling of ambivalence is a mild,
moderate, or severe conflict about an individual’s: life, job, friends,
relationships, God, spouse, or the spouse he/she doesn’t have, or health, and
so on. Ambivalence can be summarized as “part of me want to, part of me
doesn’t”. For example, part of me wants to use drugs, part of me doesn’t.
Offenders also feel ambivalence. Not only do they have the normal
ambivalences that we all feel, but they have ambivalence, s it relates to their
Parole Officer, their Case Manager, the interview process, the legal system,
their criminal behavior, the courts, the police, their lawyers, and their
41
treatment. Understanding that an offender can feel two ways about something
provides many new avenues to helping an offender change. Resolving
ambivalence is working on the problem. It removes roadblocks that hinder
change. Once ambivalence is resolved, internally motivated change can take
place. This is the Willingness part. I choose to make a change. Motivational
Interviewing (Miller and Rollnick, 1991) involves the management of
ambivalence.
There are three rules that govern ambivalence. Rule one: the nature of
ambivalence is such that, if you argue for one side of the conflict, the offender
will express its opposite.
Rule two: all communications take place on two levels – the overt and the
covert. The overt involves what the offender said. The covert level is not what
was said but what the offender may be thinking. The covert area is one that is
guarded because the offender is not sure it is safe to reveal those things. The
covert elements hold the information for motivating healthy change. If the
correctional officer or treatment provider cannot get beyond the overt
communication level, then the only interventions available are sanctions,
mandates and controls, the traditional criminal justice approaches. These can
and do work, however the offender needs time, intensity and has to comply
with the program for changes to occur.
Rule three: the ambivalence changes based on where the offender is in the
Stages of Change cycle. When people change, they follow a natural series of
progressions or stages. It does not matter what the problem is. Whether it is
starting an exercise program or changing criminal behavior, the process is the
same.
Many offenders are stuck at stage one, pre-contemplation or contemplation
(stage two). It is only at stage three, (preparation/determination), and
especially stage four (action), that an offender is “willing” to make changes.
Often, an offender may have many problems and each problem may be at a
different Stage of Change. Positive gains and benefits can be achieved by
working on a problem that the offender admits to. Then the offender may be
more willing to work on a problem that he/she is not admitting.
The “being able” to change is a critical area of deficit for offenders. The “being
able” is influenced by the principles of Social Learning Theory. Basically, from a
social learning perspective, behavior is a combination of past learning,
cognitive beliefs (thoughts and attitudes), social interactions, and actions
within the environment. For example, if I’m trying to get clean and still hang
around with friends who are using, then they will encourage me to use
(example of environmental and social influences). Also, an offender’s beliefs
about their ability to go straight or be a successful criminal, profoundly
influence the Able part of change. This is called self-efficacy. These are beliefs
that an individual has about the likelihood of completing a specific behavior
and getting a predictable outcome or effect (Bandura, 1971, 1977). If an
offender has high pro-criminal self-efficacy (He/she believes: I am a successful
criminal; I’ve made lots of money; I can continue to make lots of money),
versus having low pro-social self-efficacy (I’ve never been able to make it
42
going straight), he/she will not change. Efficacy expectations are rooted in an
individual’s sense of mastery. This is developed by either successful
experiences, which create high expectations for success, or failure experiences,
which tend to generate low expectations.
We have briefly reviewed the larger context of the change process.
Responsivity issues are a sub-set of elements involved in the change process.
Andrews and Bonta (1998, p245) state, “The Responsivity principle refers to
delivering treatment programs in a style and mode that is consistent with the
ability and learning style of the offender.” My working definition encompasses
their s but is broader. It states, “Responsivity issues are some characteristics
of the offender that require special management or adjustment to maximize
the possibility of change.” Issues of Responsivity are not ell researched. While
there has been much needed and well-validated research on criminogenic
needs, responsivity issues have not yet received the attention and focus that is
required. At times, the distinction between criminogenic and responsivity is not
clear. For example, personality is a criminogenic target, particularly those with
the narcissistic and anti-social types. However, in terms of managing or
delivering services, there are some ways that are more effective with these
personality styles a responsivity issue. Too much inter-personal connectedness
with narcissistic and antisocial types allows them to manipulate you and keeps
the correctional worker off target. It is not what they need to make changes.
However, an individual that has a dependent personality style needs inter-
personal connectedness to make changes. What follows is a list of responsivity
issues and the correlations with recidivism.

1. Denial .12
2. Personality .21 - .38
3. Authority/Reactance Problems ?
4. Motivation .14
5. Interpersonal Anxiety ?
6. Intelligence .07
7. Ethnicity / Cultural .00- .23
8. Maturity (Age) -.16
9. Learning Style ?
10. Gender .10
11. Other ?

Correlations taken from Gendreau, Goggin and Little (1996) and Hanson and
Bussiere (1996).

43
Responsivity issues do not matter when: 1) you are dealing with a
psychopathic offender; 2) the offender hates your guts; 3) you hate the
offender’s guts.
Responsivity does matter when: 1) the correctional worker or treatment
provider and the offender can have constructive, inter-personal interaction.
This occurs when the material at the covert level can be discussed; 2) you are
willing to adjust delivery (not mandates) based on the offender responsivity
needs; 3) the correctional worker is willing to try to do something that may
increase the likelihood of retraining and changing the offender.

Responsivity Issues

1. Denial
Denial, as a concept, is not very functional. By its very nature, it implies
that nothing can be done. In actuality, denial represents one of five
behaviors in which steps may be taken to resolve the “denial.” These five
behaviors are lying, perceptual bias, unawareness, resistance, and
ambivalence (Miller * Rollnick, 1991).

a. Lying
Lying behavior is based on an expectation that there will be bad
consequences for telling the truth. Possible solutions would be to
clarify the consequences. Ask the offender what their intentions are.
Are they going to continue playing the game, lying is a part of the
game, or are they gong to be responsible for themselves and work
towards their own long term good?

b. Perceptual Bias
People normally have a way that maintains a positive self-image, and
they intend to interpret negative information in a defensive, face-
saving way. So often this negative information is ignored. Use an
analogy of warning lights in a car. Negative information can be
warning lights. It can allow the offender to catch problems before they
become too big.

44
 c. Unawareness
Because we are so involved with ourselves, it is difficult to see our
own behavior causing the problems and it is quite normal to see
problems caused by external forces. Talk about how many times this
has happened. Have the offender talk about teach instance. Help the
offender look for common themes or patterns.

d. Resistance
Resistance can be based on the stage of change. It’s a normal process
for a pre-contemplator/contemplator to be resistant. Motivational
Interviewing provides tools for managing the resistance process. Go
around resistance, not through it.

e. Ambivalence
Chances are, rule one of ambivalence has been violated. The
correctional officer/treatment provider has argued that there is a
problem, but the offender, even if he/she knows there is, argues that
there is not a problem. This is the classic resistance bind.
If an offender is in “denial,” try to identify the specific behavior that it
is involved and you will be able to address the “covert” levels and
expectations of what the offender is telling you.

2. Personality

Personality affects peoples’ perceptions and behaviors. Based on our own

data of assessing 2276 offenders, both male and female, 58.1% have some
level of narcissistic personality style; 34.8% have some sort of anti-social
personality style; 26.6% have some sort of dependent personality style; an
additional 25.4% have some sort of paranoid personality style. These were
the top four personality styles. Clearly, in dealing with offenders, the
narcissistic, anti-social styles are over represented. Due to the shortness of
this summary, few specifics can be given on how to manage these styles.
Here are a few grief guidelines.
With the narcissistic/antisocial type of offender, talk can often substitute for
behavior; it is important to emphasize, it is what they do, not what they
say. This type of individual may have a difficult time perceiving reality
accurately. A way around this is asking them what other people have told
them. Or ask them to “Suppose or pretend this is a problem, then what
would you do?” instead of, “You have a problem.” It makes it less
threatening and they may be able to engage their resources to address the

45
 particular issue. It is bet to be direct and clear with your expectations. For a
dependent personality style, the most important guideline is never doing for
the client what they can do for themselves. You cannot eliminate their need
for inter-personal connections. Instead, focus on helping the dependent
personality style learn how to differentiate between helpful and harmful
relationships. The paranoid type of offender will not trust you and will look
for real or imagined proofs validating the idea that you are untrustworthy.
Then they can be justified in doing whatever they have to do. Address the
issue directly: “At some point during your supervision you may feel that I
have betrayed you. Instead of assuming I’m out to get you, which I
wouldn’t intentionally do, ask me. Can you agree to do that?”

3. Authority/Reactance Problems

Reactance is based on a theory by Brehm and Brehm (1981), which says

that perceived threats to personal freedom and choice will illicit or cause
behaviors designed to demonstrate and restore that freedom. When
behavioral freedom and autonomy are threatened, there will be an increase
in the perceived desirability of the lost (forbidden) behavior. For example,
you tell an offender that they cannot use while under supervision. One of
two things may happen: 1) They may say, “I will show you who is in
control,” and sue: and/or 2) There will be an increased desirability of the
behavior to use “I can’t live without it,” and use. The easiest way around
the authority/reactance problem is to constantly remind the offender, it is
their choice, which is true. Often, correctional personnel forget that,
although legally we have the right to tell the offender what to do,
ultimately, compliance is based on the offender’s choice to follow our
mandates or not. Ask what their intentions are around complying with your
mandates. The correctional worker might say: “What do you intend to do
about theses mandates? …I hope you will comply. I think it is in your best
long-term interest, but it is your choice.”

4. Motivation

Motivation is based on ambivalence and the stages of change, as was

addressed earlier. In the pre-contemplation stage, you want to raise the
offender’s awareness. This must be personal awareness, not general
feedback (i.e., all alcoholics). A thorough understanding of the Stages of
Change model will help one understand differences in levels of motivation
and those differences can be managed.

46
5. Inter-personal Anxiety

Individuals who are highly anxious need more contact and reassurance with
the correctional officer to reduce the anxiety. Otherwise, they will use
alternative, probably pro-criminal, solutions to reduce anxiety, i.e., drink or
sue. Individuals who have dependent or avoidant personality styles, or are
depressed tend to be highly anxious.

6. Intelligence

Individuals with lower IQ’s need more structure and more specific, concrete
behaviors to follow (i.e., more guidance). Cognitive skills classes actually
tend to work better with individuals who are average to low average IQ. The
lower the IQ, the less effective talking becomes and the greater the need
for rehearsing skills and managing environmental and social contingencies.

7. Ethnicity/Culture

This is an area so extensive that I cannot possibly begin to address all the
ramifications in this brief paper. However, with minority populations being
over represented in offender populations, it is an element that must be
considered. It is my suggestion that you talk to minority co-workers, as a
starting point, to get some input. There are many books and articles that
have addressed these issues. The critical factor is being able to connect with
the offender and find out what the covert (hidden) issues are.
Ethnicity/Cultural issues may or may not be a concern. The correctional
officer or treatment provider will not know until there is a connection with
the offender and the offender is asked.

8. Maturity (Age)

Generally, younger offenders need more contact and direction. They need
more skills building and often-longer periods of time to rehearse new
behaviors. Peer groups and risk taking are part of youth. The goal is not to
eliminate such behavior but to modify it towards a pro-social direction.

9. Learning Style

Most offenders are fairly action oriented. Offenders need active types of
programming where they can practice skills, not theory. The more tangible
the results, in terms of everyday life, the better. Offenders tend to live in
47
 the here and now, especially those with narcissistic or antisocial
personalities.

10. Gender

One of the other major areas that has not been mentioned is gender. We
know that there are significant gender differences in male and female
pathways to crime and responses to addressing criminogenic needs. For
some of these issues, look at the ICCA 1998 Conference notes and the book
The female Offender by Dr. Meda Chesney-Lind.
11. Other

There are may other areas that represent possible responsivity issues.
These can include attention deficit disorder, head injury, and major mental
health disorders. By definition, a responsivity issue is something that the
offender identifies as being important to them. Ask the offender! If you
have any sort of connections they will tell you.

Motivational Interviewing
Motivational Interviewing has mostly been used with substance abuse
populations. In the last several years it has been applied to offender
populations. Motivations Interviewing (MI) is a system designed to work with
resistant clients. It is based on an understanding of how people naturally
change. One of the foundation assumptions of MI is that people need to be
understood to make changes. It is not a blanket approval of dysfunctional,
antisocial behavior, but an understanding of the deeper “cover”
communication. At the heart of MI is a series of tools and skills that are
designed to increase awareness and ambivalence. It confronts an individual’s
destructive behavior with what they say they want. For example, asking a
client “How does using cocaine help you be a better father?” MI helps unstuck
the change process. It cannot and will not substitute for behavioral change and
skill building, but resolves ambivalence so the offender can fully engage
treatment.
There are certain core concepts of Motivational Interviewing. These are:
express empathy, develop discrepancy, avoid argumentation, roll with
resistance, and support self-efficacy. (Miller & Rollnick,1991). Expressing
empathy allows the offender to share those deeper issues. Empathy is
expressed through reflective listening. In MI not everything is reflected, only
those things that are likely to get the offender in the directions the officer
wants to go. Empathy allows change to take place. Develop discrepancy is
really what makes MI different. It brings an awareness of consequences and
highlights the discrepancy between behaviors and goals, which can motivate
change.

48
It is far more powerful when the offender comes up with reasons for change,
than simply being told. Avoid argumentation! Whenever the correctional officer
and the offender get into an argument, the offender has already won. There is
no research support for the idea that argumentation increases change. In fact,
research has shown the more argumentation, the less likely change will take
place. When resistance or argumentation starts, it is a warning light to change
strategies. Offender’s attitudes are shaped and changed by their own words –
not a correctional worker or treatment provider. Rolling with resistance allows
the correctional officer to shift perceptions and invite new perspectives from
the client.
Often an offender will throw tidbits out to get the correctional worker to react.
What this does is get the worker off track from what the real issues are. Do not
get caught up in the tidbits. Remember what you are trying to do in the
supervision plan. Support self-efficacy. A worker’s belief that change is possible
can be an important motivator for the offender. The offender is responsible for
making and carrying out change. Hope is also a powerful motivator, which
supports self-efficacy. There are many approaches to dealing with a problem,
some will work and others will not. Supporting self-efficacy realizes that
something will work even if you have tried to do something about the problem
before.
It is unlikely that a correctional worker will be able to focus on more then one
or two responsivity issues, especially when starting to include them in the
supervision plan. Start by trying to identify likely responsivity issues of the
offender. Prioritize them based on the importance an offender is likely to place
on them or what you will believe will be the most critical to the offender’s
success. Decide which one or two you will address and include them in your
Supervision Plan.
For a person to change, he/she must be Ready, Willing and Able. The entire
change process can be derailed by blockages in any of these areas. The major
roadblock in the Ready area is ambivalence – “Part of me wants to part of me
doesn’t”. Learning to work with ambivalence is the way to unstuck someone
who is not ready to change. The Stage of Change Model outlines some specific
steps that all people go through in making changes. There are certain tasks or
goals to be accomplished at each stage. Offenders are Willing to change when
they are at Stage three – preparation/determination. Being Able to change is a
complex process of having self-efficacy and healthy pro-social, social, and
environmental supports.

Responsivity issues are adjustments in the delivery of supervision and

treatment of the offender because of certain characteristics of the offender. By
addressing responsivity issues, it increases the likelihood the offender will stay
around and benefit from treatment. It also increases the likelihood that the
treatment or intervention will stick!

49
REFERENCES

Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct. Second
edition. Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co.

Bandura, A. (1971). Social Learning Theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning

Press.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral

change, Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York:
Academic Press.

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Little, T. (1996). Predicting adult offender
recidivism: what works!. Canada: The Ministry of the Solicitor General.

Hanson, K. & Bussiere, M.T. (1996). Predictors of sexual offender recidivism: A

meta-analysis. Canada: The Ministry of the Solicitor General.

Miller, W.R., & Rollnick, S., (1991). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people
to change addictive behavior. New York: The Guilford Press.

Prochaska, J.O., Norcross, J.C., & DiClemente, C.C. (1994). Changing for good.
New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc. (this book describes the Stages of
Change in detail)

50