Cole A Higley1, Caleb D Lloyd2, Ralph C Serin3. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Texas at El Paso. 2. Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science, Swinburne University of Technology. 3. Department of Psychology, Carleton University.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Specific responsivity features are not directly targeted in offender rehabilitation programs but may impact a client's receptivity. We investigated if two features may explain why high-quality correctional programs do not uniformly impact all high-risk, high-needs clients. HYPOTHESES: The current study was exploratory. We hypothesized a relationship between higher static risk and poorer program outcomes and then explored if this relationship was attenuated by age and motivation. METHOD: Program providers rated the performance of incarcerated males (n = 2,417, Mean age = 33.6, SD = 9.9, Range = 18-81) who attended one of six types of programs during incarceration (for general, violent, and sexual offenders). Using risk scores calculated at prison entry, we predicted performance and official record recidivism. Preprogram motivation and age were moderators. RESULTS: Five of 24 exploratory multilevel models revealed an attenuated relationship between risk and program outcome among older offenders (percent variance explained = 17.9% within violence groups; 11.5% within living skills groups; and a 9% difference in predicted recidivism rates among high-risk attendees of family violence groups) and offenders with higher preprogram motivation (percent variance explained = 43.6% within violence groups, and a 7% difference in predicted recidivism rates among high risk attendees in living skills groups). CONCLUSIONS: Age and motivation can be specific responsivity features that may deserve attention in rehabilitation practice. However, observed effects may have been weakened by underdeveloped, single-indicator measurement strategies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: Specific responsivity features are not directly targeted in offender rehabilitation programs but may impact a client's receptivity. We investigated if two features may explain why high-quality correctional programs do not uniformly impact all high-risk, high-needs clients. HYPOTHESES: The current study was exploratory. We hypothesized a relationship between higher static risk and poorer program outcomes and then explored if this relationship was attenuated by age and motivation. METHOD: Program providers rated the performance of incarcerated males (n = 2,417, Mean age = 33.6, SD = 9.9, Range = 18-81) who attended one of six types of programs during incarceration (for general, violent, and sexual offenders). Using risk scores calculated at prison entry, we predicted performance and official record recidivism. Preprogram motivation and age were moderators. RESULTS: Five of 24 exploratory multilevel models revealed an attenuated relationship between risk and program outcome among older offenders (percent variance explained = 17.9% within violence groups; 11.5% within living skills groups; and a 9% difference in predicted recidivism rates among high-risk attendees of family violence groups) and offenders with higher preprogram motivation (percent variance explained = 43.6% within violence groups, and a 7% difference in predicted recidivism rates among high risk attendees in living skills groups). CONCLUSIONS: Age and motivation can be specific responsivity features that may deserve attention in rehabilitation practice. However, observed effects may have been weakened by underdeveloped, single-indicator measurement strategies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).