2. Liam Ennis, Ph.D., R.Psych INTEGRATED THREAT AND RISK ASSESSMENT CENTRE/ ALBERTA LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TEAMS Using the Principles of Risk, Need, and Responsivity to Inform Family Violence Interventions

3. Show me the data!

4. Match the level of service to the offender’s risk to re-offend Assess criminogenic needs and target them in treatment Effective intervention matches learning style, motivation, abilities and strengths of offenders

5. Risk-Need-Responsivity: Meta-analytic examination (k = 374) Overall: (mean effect size by adherence to # of principles) Figure 2.3 (p.74) from Andrews & Bonta (2010)

6. Risk-Need-Responsivity: Meta-analytic examination (k = 374) By gender: Fig 2.4 (p.75) from Andrews & Bonta (2010)

7. Risk-Need-Responsivity: Meta-analytic examination (k = 374) By offender age: Fig 2.5 (p.75) from Andrews & Bonta (2010)

8. Risk-Need-Responsivity: Meta-analytic examination (k = 374) By setting: Fig 2.6 (p.75) from Andrews & Bonta (2010)

9. Risk-Need-Responsivity: Meta-analytic examination (k = 374) By increasing levels of RNR adherence: Fig 2.8 (p.76) from Andrews & Bonta (2010)

10. According to the research evidence… Adherence with RNR is primary when the goal is to reduce criminal victimization With increasing adherence to the 3 principles, there is a corresponding reduction in recidivism In light of the constraints in both institutional and community resources, RNR provides best ‘bang for your buck’

11. Match the level of service to the offender’s risk to re-offend Assess criminogenic needs and target them in treatment Effective intervention matches learning style, motivation, abilities and strengths of offenders

12. Level of Treatment/Supervision Intensity “Match level of program intensity to offender risk level” ­Intensive levels of treatment for high risk offenders ­Minimal intervention for low risk offenders Low intensity Moderate intensity High intensity Low risk Moderate risk High risk

13. Level of Treatment Intensity Institution and community based 3 to 5 hrs of group sessions per week 2 to 3 months (total of 24 to 60 hours) Low intensity Moderate intensity High intensity

14. Level of Treatment Intensity Programs mainly in institutions 3-5 group sessions per week (25 total) 2-3 hours in length (50-75 total hours) 3 individual sessions Low intensity Moderate intensity High intensity

15. Level of Treatment Intensity Institution based 3-5 group sessions per week (78 total) 2-3 hours in length (156-234 total hours) 10 individual sessions Low intensity Moderate intensity High intensity

16. ITRAC Risk Ratings for IPV Case (N = 147) 16

17. Distribution of ODARA scores 17

18. Any criminal recidivism Failure on conditional release Violent recidivism Non-violent recidivism Stalking recidivism Target involved recidivism Comparison of recidivism variables

19. “Evaluations respond better to the needs of decision-makers (and science) when the evaluation also explains the source of risk” Hanson (2009)

20. The Central 8 History of criminal behavior Negative social influences/absence of prosocial influences Procriminal attitudes/beliefs/values Antisocial personality pattern Educational/employment challenges Dysfunctional familial and marital relationships Lack of prosocial recreation Substance abuse

21. For treatment, separate offenders by type? Ennis, Buro & Jung (2014)

22. Abuser Typlogies Antisocial/Psychopathic Borderline Personality Family Only

23. “We encourage assessors and service providers to seriously consider the personal characteristics of each and every offender prior to determining what kind of approach is likely to work best with him or her.” Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith (2011)

24. Responsivity General responsivity Specific responsivity The RESPONSIVITY Principle Refer to influence strategies Use structured, cognitive- behavioral interventions Ensure therapeutic alliance is established Matching treatment to client characteristics: Strengths, ability, motivation, personality Gender, ethnicity, and age

25. ITRAC Stakeholder Research Ennis, Hargreaves, & Gulayets (under review) Majority of recommendations implemented by 71% of stakeholders Lack of resources Turnaround time Awareness of ITRAC services Liability

26. R-N-R-Based System Requirements 1.Valid methods for assessing risk/need 2.Aspire to have services available at all points on the risk-need continuum 3.Communicate and cooperate System partners need to to get individuals’ needs met 4.Empirically informed practices

27. Other Thoughts… Smart, well-intentioned people are interested in your data Partnership building initiatives and funding

28. Contact information Dr. Liam Ennis ITRAC/ALERT liam.ennis@alert-ab.ca 28