M easuring Criminal Thinking: - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Measuring Criminal Thinking: Three Different Perspectives on Implementation

Alec Boros, Ph.D. Research Manager, Oriana House, Inc.Mike RandleProgram Manager, Oriana House, Inc.Dzanela SehicProgram Coordinator, Oriana House, Inc.

Slide2

OverviewResponsivity: A ReviewSummary of Responsity Assessments we useA Short Inventory of ProblemsThe Criminal Thinking ScaleThe Assessment

Some Results from our AgencyPutting the CTS to Use: A facility manager perspectivePutting the CTS to Use: Caseworker perspective

Slide3

Responsivity: A Review

Slide4

Relationship of Targeted Interventions: Neglected AreasResponsivity

NeedDesired OutcomeDosageTreatment

Fidelity

Risk

Treatment Plan

Slide5

Responsivity: General vs. SpecificGeneral Responsivity-is associated the use of the most effective correctional programming to change the

criminogenic needs of offendersSpecific ResponsivityUse cognitive behavioral interventions that take into account characteristics of the individual. Failure to address can hinder treatment efforts

Slide6

Responsivity: Internal vs. ExternalInternal Responsivity Factors Characteristics of the individual offenderDemographic More difficult to assess and accommodate factors such as personality and intelligenceThey can contribute to the engagement of offenders into treatment and the development of therapeutic alliance

Slide7

Responsivity: Internal vs. ExternalExternal Responsivity Factors The interaction between Facility, Staff and Client characteristics

Staff

Facility

Client

Slide8

How can we categorize these responsivity areas?GenderRaceAge

Ethnicity ReligionPeersMotivationTraumaLiteracyAttitude/Thinking StyleFamily relationsPersonalityIntelligenceCommunication styleLearning Style

Demographic

Characteristics

Dynamic

Characteristics

Static or Near-Static

Characteristics

Programming

Slide9

Sample of Responsivity Assessments Used at OHIAssessment

Construct

Our Recommendation

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE)

Assesses exposure to childhood emotional, physical or sexual abuse and household dysfunction

Under review. Currently developing norms to examine how we can use information regarding adverse childhood experiences to guide programming.

TCU Criminal Thinking Scales (TCU CTS)

Measures 6 criminal thinking styles

Yes. Good assessment for determining client thinking errors prior to programming. Can be used to guide programming as well as one-on-one client-staff interactions. Also, an effective measure of client change when pre and post test scores are compared

TCU Family and Friends

Family relationships, family drug use, peer socialization, peer criminality

Under review. Currently developing norms to examine how we can use information regarding social functioning (family/friends) to guide programming.

Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Style (PICTS)

Assesses 8 criminal thinking styles

It depends. An excellent, well-validated assessment of pre-intervention thinking as well as pre and post test change, but maybe not be practical due to length and difficulty in scoring

Slide10

Sample of Assessments Used at OHIAssessment

Construct

Our Recommendation

PTSD Diagnostic Scale (PDS)

Assesses severity of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Symptoms stemming from a traumatic incident

Yes. Good for assessment of PTSD symptoms to determine whether client requires a referral for PTSD treatment. Also can be used as a post-test to determine changes in PTSD symptoms. Please note: self report assessment that is administered and scored by a clinician.

Short Inventory of Problems (SIP)

Measure 5 life areas that could be affected by drug/alcohol use in past 3 months

Yes. Good assessment for determining problems related to drug and alcohol use. Can be used to provide insight into areas where client requires assistance. Also, an effective measure of client change and improvement in client functioning when pre and post test scores are compared.

University of Rhode Island Change Assessment Score (URICA)

Motivation to change as assessed by Transtheoretical Model of Change

Yes. Good assessment for determining the client

’

s initial motivation to change. Can be adapted to address any problem. We found it is not effective as a post-test and cannot effectively be used to determine change in motivation.

Slide11

Criminal Thinking: Selecting an Instrument

Slide12

Major Criminogenic Risk Factors: Big Four & Central Eight

Anti-social Attitudes/Thinking

Anti-social Peers

Anti-social Personality Pattern

History of Anti-Social Behavior

Big Four

Central

Eight

5. Family

/ Marital Factors

6. Lack

of Achievement in

Education/ Employment

7. Lack

of Pro-social Leisure Activities

8. Substance

Abuse

Slide13

Selecting an Appropriate Responsivity Assessment

Slide14

Criminal Thinking Scale (TCU CTS)OriginsDeveloped from the work of Glen Walters and the Bureau of Prisons in 1996Knight et al., development assessment in 2006Reliability and validity of the CTS3,266 clients from 26 programs

Slide15

Criminal Thinking Scale (TCU CTS)

TCU CTS ScalesDefinition

Personal Irresponsibility

Blaming others/external factors for criminal behavior.

Entitlement

Feeling of privilege

Power Orientation

Need for power/ control over others

Justification

Minimalization of seriousness of antisocial acts

Cold Heartedness

Callousness

Criminal Rationalization

Negative attitude toward law and authority figures

requires about 15 minutes to

complete

36-item

self-report

questionnaire

Each item is rated using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = uncertain, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree)

The scales contain an average of 6 items

each

Higher

scores on a subscale indicate a greater tendency to exhibit the pattern of thinking being measured by that

subscale

Slide16

Criminal Thinking Scale (TCU CTS)

Sample CTS questions

Slide17

Criminal Thinking Scale (TCU CTS)

Scoring Breakdown

Slide18

Criminal Thinking Scale: Norming our Population

Slide19

ObjectivesTo identify the standard cut-off CTS scores used in the agency To illustrate pre- and post- test results of TCU CTS assessment which serves as a measure of change in criminal thinking.Why develop our own cut-off scores? TCU Norms were developed with a different population

Greater Socio-economic diversityGreater diversity in problem severityGreater diversity in correctional settingNot gender specificPopulations used Male and FemaleHalfway House, CBCF, Probationers (contract)

Norming our Population at Oriana

Slide20
Norming our Population at Oriana

DemographicSummit Male CBCF

Summit Female CBCFRCCTMRCJNRMCBCFCROSSWAEH

Total

Gender (n = 1,707)

Male

338

 

 

 

170

 

486

 

211

 

1205

70.6%

Female

 

113

 

269

 

 

 

120

 

502

29.4%

Education (n = 1,276)

No GED/

High School

155

 

43

 

72

 

23

 

229

 

 

522

40.9%

High School/ GED

175

 

64

 

182

 

51

 

241

 

 

713

55.9%

Higher than

High School/ GED 8 6 14 1 

12

 

41

3.2%

Race (n = 1,243)

Caucasian

150

84

212

32

139

 

617

49.6%

African American

168

24

46

42

306

 

586

47.1%

Other

7

2

4

2

25

 

40

3.2%

Slide21
CTS scores at intake:

Red numbers represent the highest scores in each criminal subscale.

Blue numbers represent the lowest scores in each criminal subscale.

Norming our Population at Oriana

Slide22

*Since there are some data which were not normally distributed, non-normal distributed data were transformed to the log number before running independent t-test analysis.Norming our Population at Oriana

Mean and median of intake CTS scores compared by gender:

Slide23

Norming our Population at Oriana

Slide24

Norming our Population at OrianaCTS norm-referenced cut-off scores: OHI Female

Slide25

Norming our Population at OrianaCTS norm-referenced cut-off scores: OHI Male

Slide26
Norming our Population at Oriana

 

ORIANA MALE CTS Scores Q1 (Low)Q2 (Low-Moderate)

Q

3

(Moderate-High)

Q

4

(Moderate-High)

Entitlement

=10

10 < X ≤ 11.7

11.7 <X ≤ 18.3

X > 18.3

Justification

=10

10 < X ≤ 15.0

15.0 <X ≤ 20.0

X > 20

Power Orientation

10 ≤ X ≤ 12.9

12.9 < X ≤ 17.2

17.2 <X ≤ 21.4

X > 21.4

Cold Heartedness

10 ≤ X ≤ 18.0

18.0 < X ≤ 22.0

22.0 <X ≤ 26.0

X > 26.0

Criminal Rationalization

10 ≤ X ≤ 15.0

15.0 < X ≤ 20.0

20.0 <X ≤ 25.0

X > 25.0

Personal Irresponsibility

10 ≤ X ≤ 11.7

11.7 < X ≤ 15.0

15.0 <X ≤ 20.0

X > 20.0

 

ORIANA FEMALE CTS

scores

 

Q

1

(Low)

Q

2

(Low-Moderate)

Q

3

(Moderate-High)

Q

4

(Moderate-High)

Entitlement

=10

10 < X

≤ 15.0

15.0 <X

≤ 20.0X > 20.0Justification10 ≤ X ≤ 11.711.7 < X ≤ 16.716.7 <X ≤ 20.0X > 20.0Power Orientation

10 ≤ X ≤ 15.7

15.7 < X

≤ 20.0

20.0 <X

≤ 24.3

X > 24.3

Cold Heartedness

10 ≤ X ≤ 20.0

20.0 < X

≤ 24.0

24.0 <X

≤ 28.0

X > 28.0

Criminal Rationalization

10 ≤ X ≤ 20.0

20.0 < X

≤ 25.0

25.0 <X

≤ 30.0

X > 30.0

Personal Irresponsibility

10 ≤ X ≤ 13.3

13.3 < X

≤ 18.3

18.3 <X

≤ 21.7

X > 21.7

Slide27

Criminal Thinking Scale: Pre- and Post-Tests

Slide28

Pre- and Post- CTS results Specialized Cognitive Offender Programming & Education -

SCOPE - SCOPE data were analyzed from 2010 to 2012. Average Pre- and Post- CTS scores compared by gender

Blue

numbers represent CTS scores statistically decreased over the assessment period.

Slide29

Pre- and Post- CTS results Specialized Cognitive Offender Programming & Education -

SCOPE Average Pre- and Post CTS scores compared by year

Blue

numbers represent CTS scores statistically decreased over the assessment period.

Slide30

Pre- and Post- CTS results

Red numbers

represent significant increase in score from pre- to post-test.

Blue numbers

represent significant

decrease in score

from pre- to post-test

Slide31

Putting the CTS to Use: A facility manager perspective

Slide32
Judge nancy CBCF Results

Variable

Variable Categoriesn

%

Race

African American

316

62.2

Caucasian

147

28.9

Hispanic

15

3.0

Multiracial

10

2.0

Other

7

1.4

Education

No High School Degree

229

45.1

High School Degree

103

20.3

GED

158

31.1

Associate Degree

12

2.4

Bachelor’s Degree

2

.4

Advanced Degree

1

0.2

Slide33
Judge nancy CBCF Results

Slide34
Judge nancy CBCF Results

 

January 2012-April 2013(n = 136)May 2013-April 2014

(n = 154)

Pre-test

Post-test

p-value

Pre-test

Post-test

p-value

 

Entitlement

16.70

16.90

.666

16.80

16.06

.137

Justification

16.83

17.63

.106

17.48

16.82

.188

Power Orientation

19.63

20.73

.015*

20.49

21.47

.

069*

Cold Heartedness

25.38

25.10

.608

25.77

21.48

.107

Criminal Rationalization

25.28

25.73

397

25.55

24.57

.421

Personal Irresponsibility

19.41

18.46

.057*.

19.61

18.47

.022*

Slide35

Shared with staffDeveloping new programming Shared with other programs (Transitional Services)How CTS Results are used in

our Facilities

Slide36

Putting the CTS to Use: Caseworker perspective

Slide37
Using CTS in Caseworker meetings: entitlemen

tWhat is Entitlement?ExamplesHOMEWORK IDEASInventory of Wants vs. NeedsBefore making choices list out the consequences to other people.

I’m a victim of others worksheet (give handout and reading)“I Want it Fast and Easy” Homework “Robin Hood” Homework Thinking Report, Thinking Check In, Cognitive Model, Cognitive Model with Replacement Thoughts or “Thinking and Feeling” Worksheet on: Anytime you find yourself saying “I need this”, “I deserve it”, “You owe me”, “I want it now”, and “I can’t wait”, “I won’t wait” do TR Optional - evaluate is it a Want vs. Need When you feel its okay to break a small rule.

Slide38
Using CTS in Caseworker meetings:

power orientationWhat is Power Orientation?ExamplesHOMEWORK IDEAS3 step from T4CThinking Report, Thinking Check In, Cognitive Model, Cognitive Model with Replacement Thoughts, “Thinking and Feeling” Worksheet, or L17 Homework from T4C on:

Situation where you become upset when someone tells you what to do.When you feel you are not in controlWhen someone disrespects youWhenever you feel yourself becoming defensive or argumentativeWhen things don’t go your way

Slide39
Using CTS in Caseworker meetings:

Criminal rationalizationWhat is Criminal Rationalization?ExamplesHOMEWORK IDEAS“What is the bad thing that happened to you?” Homework“This happens again and again in your life and you don’t like it” Homework

Thinking Report, Thinking Check In, Cognitive Model, Cognitive Model with Replacement Thoughts or “Thinking and Feeling” Worksheet on:a. Situation where you begin feeling like you are being treated unfair.b. Times when you begin to think “the system”, “facility”, “staff” is unfair.

Slide40
Using CTS in Caseworker meetings:

justificationWhat is Justification?ExamplesHOMEWORK IDEAS“I’m a victim of others” worksheet (give handout and reading)Seemingly Unimportant Decisions “SUDS” Homework

No One Was Hurt – Ripple Effect“This happens again and again in your life and you don’t like it” WorksheetChoices and Consequences (self and others). Can do past or current situationsThinking Report, Thinking Check In, Cognitive Model, Cognitive Model with Replacement Thoughts or “Thinking and Feeling” Worksheet on:When you find yourself wanting to do something you shouldn’t do because “Everyone else is doing it”.When you find yourself blaming other People, Places, or Things for your actions.

Slide41
Using CTS in Caseworker meetings:

cold-heartedness'What is Cold-heartedness?ExamplesHOMEWORK IDEAS1. Choices and Consequences (self only) Both positive and negative (Decisions worksheet)2. List out who is important in your life.

Have client then list out consequences to that person for their actions

Slide42

Using CTS in Caseworker meetings: personal irresponsibility

What is Personal Irresponsibility?

Examples

HOMEWORK IDEAS

1. If a client receives a rule violation have them take a look at how

they

played a role in the situation. (Cog Model)

2. “What is the bad thing that happened to you?” Homework

3. “This happens again and again in your life and you don’t like it”

Homework

4. Thinking

Report, Thinking Check In, Cognitive Model, Cognitive

Model

with Replacement Thoughts or “Thinking and Feeling”

Worksheet

on:

“ism

” –

Favoritism,

racism,

sexism -- have

client do TR.

Slide43
Cognitive Model

Slide44

Slide45

Slide46

Slide47

Slide48
Cognitive Model with Replacement Thoughts

Slide49

Thinking and Feeling Worksheet

Thoughts The Situation Feelings

Slide50

CTS results distributed to assigned caseworkerCaseworker begins EPICS II process with client:Role ClarificationExplaining Behavioral AnalysisProcessing Behavioral AnalysisOnce caseworker processes the Behavioral Analysis, those targets, as well as the identified CTS domains, are placed on the RACE document to track and determine direction

Based on the collaboration between client and caseworker, a single target from the RACE document is chosenAppropriate homework will be assigned to address the chosen targetUsing the CTS in conjunction with EPICS II

Slide51

RecognizeLearn to recognize high-risk situations

AvoidCan you avoid? Plan to avoid

Cope

If you cannot avoid, plan to manage

Evaluate

How can you better handle the scenario? What did you do well?

 

Need to feel in control; Feeling disrespected

 

 

 

 

Personal Irresponsibility

 

 

 

 

Feeling entitled to certain things; Wanting fast and easy way

 

 

 

 

Specific peer

 

 

 

 

Lack of self control

 

 

 

This form is designed to help you keep track of situations (people, places, things) that increase your risk of getting into trouble. List the situations that you have recognized as being high-risk for you, how you plan to avoid them, if you can’t avoid them how you will cope with them, and finally, how your avoidance and coping strategies have worked if you have tried them out. Think of ways you can improve your avoidance and coping skills each time you try one. Last, be sure to use self-reinforcement when you avoid or cope successfully!

Slide52

Personal Irresponsibility

Cognitive model (how they played a role in the situation)What is this bad thing homeworkThis happens again and againThinking Report, Thinking Check in, Cognitive model with or without replacement thoughts: favoritism, racism, sexism

Lack of self control

Social skill: using self control

Choices and consequences list: times they’ve not used self control and the consequences that occurred

Cognitive model or thinking report on specific situation

Specific peer

Avoidance plan

Coping plan

Slide53

Slide54
Cognitive Skills Specialists receive CTS results for clients with a Very High ORAS risk score

CTS results are utilized during Very High Risk Group sessions by implementing previously established curricula for Thinking Errors in order to process those identified targets During Very High Risk Individual sessions, staff tailors approach based on CTS results Consistent communication and collaboration between caseworker and assigned Cognitive Skills Specialist on client’s progressCurrently, above process in place only for VHR clientsUsing the CTS in Cognitive Programming

Slide55

Slide56

Lessons Learned and Discussion

Slide57

Some Lessons LearnedAn assessment is useless unless you make plans on how it will be integrated within your program. Be sure to use a tracking method that is right for your project, staff and resourcesCQI: fidelity of assessment and application of assessment

Slide58

Questions?