No description available.

The present study was archival in nature and examined risk for recidivism, treatment-related changes in risk, protection against recidivism, treatment-related changes in protection, the relationship between risk and protective factors, and the prediction of positive community outcomes. A select set of risk- and protective-factor measures were used, including the Violence Risk Scale (VRS), the Historical Clinical Risk Management scheme-20 (HCR-20 version 2), the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors (SAPROF), and the PF List (an operationalized list of protective factors developed by the investigators). Participants included 178 federally incarcerated adult male violent offenders who participated in the Aggressive Behaviour Control treatment program at the Regional Psychiatric Centre (Saskatoon, SK) between 1998 and 2003. Participants were followed for an average of 9.7 years (SD 2.6) to assess community recidivism. Approximately 60% had at least one new violent conviction, 60% had at least one new nonsexual violent conviction, and 79% had at least one new conviction (i.e., any reconviction). Additionally, participants were followed for an average of 30.7 months (SD = 40.3) to assess institutional recidivism. Approximately 31% had at least one post-treatment major misconduct, 51% had at least one post-treatment minor misconduct, 12% had at least one post-treatment violent misconduct, and 56% had at least one post-treatment misconduct (i.e., any misconduct). Correlations between the risk measures scores support their convergent validity. Both the VRS and HCR-20 predicted all violent, nonsexual violent, and any recidivism. Dynamic variables on these tools generally added uniquely to the prediction of community recidivism over static variables. A similar but weaker pattern of results was observed for institutional recidivism. Additionally, treatment-related change scores on the risk measures added uniquely to the prediction of most recidivism outcomes, supporting the dynamism of these tools and the hypothesis that treatment-related changes translate to actual reductions in recidivism rates. Correlations between the protection measures’ scores support their convergent validity. The protective factor tools, the SAPROF and PF List, similarly predicted community recidivism and, to a lesser degree, institutional recidivism. Dynamism of the protective factor tools was supported and change scores on these tools added incrementally to the prediction of recidivism outcomes. Large correlations were observed between the risk and protection scores, suggesting that part of the predictive accuracy of the protection measures may relate to measuring the absence of risk rather than the presence of protection. Alternative hypotheses are discussed. Protection scores did not add incrementally to the prediction of recidivism over their respective risk scores. Risk, protection, and change scores were significant predictors of most positive community outcomes. Protection scores and risk change scores added incrementally to the prediction of positive community outcomes over their respective risk scores. As such, it appears that treatment-related changes may also represent increases in other positive community outcomes (beyond reduced reoffending) and that protection factors may have important benefits in risk assessment and treatment planning when other positive community outcomes are considered. Strengths, limitations, and implications are discussed.

No description available.

Crime is a social problem and leads to many negative consequences, and it is therefore of interest to analyze how officials in The Prison and Probation Service implement the principles risk, need and responsivity, (RNR-model) in crime prevention measures to reduce the risk among incarcerated prisoners to relapse into crime based on the informants’ perceptions. Furthermore, differences in the official’s autonomy regarding the implementation of crime prevention measures will be analyzed based on the RNR-model and what consequences these differences have according to the officials. The RNR-model is an innovation that has been spread in The Prison and Probation service and will be analyzed by Rogers (2003) Diffusion of innovation theory. The officials' autonomy to implement the RNR-model will be analyzed by Lipsky's (1990) theory of street-level bureaucracy. In this case study, I have conducted eight individual semi-structured interviews and the sample consists of officials who have many years of experience working with treatment in The Prison and Probation Service. The results show that the informants take a similar approach to the RNR-model and that the RNR-model pervades the entire crime prevention measures. The conclusion is that the prevention measures consist of treatment programs combined with work management, adult education, and other structured activities and that these parts are interconnected. The crime prevention measures are characterized by helping the prisoners develop necessary skills to be able to get out of crime and get the best possible conditions to reduce the risk of relapsing into crime. The results also show that there are differences between the officials' autonomy regarding the implementation of the RNR-model in the crime prevention measures and that the officials' do not act from a common approach. The officials have, based on their autonomy, the opportunity to create their own interpretations of the RNR-model that can affect the outcome of the work, which can mean that the prisoners are treated differently depending on how the officials have chosen to implement the RNR-model. The conclusion is that the RNR-model contributed to clear structures and guidelines, but that there is a certain problem with implementing the receptivity principle in a similar way because of the officials' having difficulty understanding the meaning of the principle.

No description available.

Syftet med denna studie var att belysa svenska frivårdsinspektörers erfarenheter av att använda RBM-modellen. Vi har genomfört en kvalitativ intervjustudie med sex frivårdsinspektörer. Frivårdsinspektörerna uppvisade en positiv inställning till användandet av RBM-modellen. De uppvisade även erfarenheter av att det finns brister och svårigheter i användningen av modellen och kopplade detta till riskbedömningsinstrument och klienternas egenheter. De positiva inslag som användningen av modellen har tillfört är en struktur, tydlighet och fokus i arbetet samt att frivårdsinspektörerna lyfte RBM-modellens relativa övertag mot tidigare arbetssätt. Det framkom även i studien skilda uppfattningar rörande RBM-modellens mottaglighetsprincip. Frivårdsinspektörernas olika syn på detta område var något som kunde tänkas påverka deras användning av principen. De brister som kopplades till användningen bestod av flera möjliga faktorer. En av dessa var den grundutbildning rörande modellen som ges inom Kriminalvården. Utbildningen kan vara en förklarande faktor till de svårigheter frivårdsinspektörerna identifierade i sitt arbete med RBM-modellens mottaglighetsprincip. / The purpose of this study was to examine and illustrate Swedish probation officers’ experiences of their use of the RNR model. We have completed six qualitative interviews with probation officers. The probation officers showed a positive attitude towards the RNR model. They also showed experiences of flaws and difficulties in their use of the model and related these to the risk assessment instrument and the characteristics of the clients. The positive effects that the use of the RNR model had was that it brought structure, lucidity and focus to their work. They also pointed out the models relative advantage towards earlier methods. It was also clear that the probation officers had different views of the responsivity principle. These different views could affect their use of this principle. The difficulties regarding the use of the model that could be related to the probation officers’ experiences consisted of several possible causes. Education regarding the model was one of these possible causes that we found could explain the experienced difficulties in the probation officers use of the RNR model.