Evolution of Community
Supervision of Sex Offenders
How British Columbia Corrections got to applying the principles
of Risk, Needs and Responsivity in working with sex offenders
Chris Thomson
Britu Kolumbijas Likumpārkāpēju labošanas dienests/
Britu Kolumbijas Tieslietu institūts
(Kanāda)
Rīga,
2011.g. martā
Frequently asked questions
about sex offenders
Using Risk Needs and Responsivity
The Risk Needs Responsivity (RNR) model of assessment
and supervision is designed from evidenced based
research of offenders and has been adopted in many
areas across North America.
British Columbia Corrections was the first province in Canada to incorporate
these principles in specific policy. This was supported with probation officer
training designed to enhance the understanding and applied effectiveness of
this model.
RNR is used within the supervision of sexual offenders to
manage risk and help reduce recidivism.
Origins of Sex Offender Supervision
in British Columbia
1987: 1st experimental community office set up to specifically supervise sexual
offenders released on probation supervision and provincial parole
(Supervision as part of early release from prison).
Two probation officers, one psychologist supervising 120 offenders.
Theoretical background behind the supervision:
Relapse Prevention Model influenced by the work of;
(Dr. Marlett, Dr. R. Laws, Dr. Pithers, Robert Freeman-Longo)
Relapse Prevention Model
Early Assessment of Offenders
Offenders were interviewed at length on family background, employment
education, sexual history (using the SONE sexual history background) and
attitude towards the offence.
Psychologist interviewed the offenders using MMPI ( Minnesota Multi-Phasic
Personality Inventory) The test is used by trained professionals to assist in
identifying personality structure and psychopathology.
A “Plan to Live By” was constructed by the offender and the probation officer that
Incorporated the probation conditions.
External supervision by collateral contacts were also utilized. These contacts
were screened by the probation officer to assess for understanding of the
probationers risk to re-offend.
3rd Generation Risk Assessment
An assessment tool called the Sex Offender Risk Assessment (SORA) was
developed in British Columbia by Dr. Randy Atkinson, Dr. Randall Kropp and
Dr. Richard Laws. It was used by British Columbia probation officers in the
early 90’s.
The SORA divides into two sections. The first section is comprised of
10 static factors and the second section is comprised of 17 dynamic risk
factors. This second section of dynamic risk factors, although not
actuarial, was crucial for probation officers to develop case
management strategies. This concept was ahead of the literature
available at the time, which was to simply categorize offenders on
actuarial instruments.
Sex Offender Risk Assessment SORA
Static 99R and Stable 2007
SORA Risk
Factor titles
Static 99R
SORA
Explanations
Stable 2007 Scoring
Philosophy Change
In the early 90’s, the BC Corrections Branch adopted the use of
evidence based research and incorporated the principles of
Risk, Need and Responsivity.
(Dr. Don Andrews, Dr. James Bonta and Dr. Paul Gendreau.)
All of our case management supervision plans were
directed by our risk/needs assessments that were adopted from
evidence based research.
Our Provincial Director of Community Corrections, Mr. Robert Watts
provided the direction and support for a cultural shift from the way
we had been supervising offenders.
Dr. Andrews passed away Oct. 22. 2010. His final paper was:
The impact of nonprogrammatic factors on criminal-justice interventions.
Legal and Criminological Psychology (2011), 16, 1–23 C
2010 The British Psychological Society
Principles of Evidenced Based Corrections
Risk Need Responsivity
Risk
Match the level of service to the offender’s risk to re-offend.
Need
Assess criminogenic needs and target them in treatment.
Responsivity
Maximize the offender’s ability to learn from a rehabilitative intervention by
providing cognitive behavioural treatment and tailoring the intervention to the
learning style, motivation, abilities and strengths of the offender.
General
Use cognitive social learning methods to influence behaviour.
Specific
Use cognitive behavioural interventions that take into account strengths, learning
style, personality, motivation, and bio-social (e.g., gender, race) characteristics of
the individual.
What works in Corrections
Risk Principle
 Direct services to high risk offenders
 as number of risk/needs factors increase, the effort to modify
them must increase
 Need Principle
 not all needs causally related to criminal conduct
 some needs are criminogenic, target those ones
 Responsivity Principle
 cognitive-behavioural interventions work best
 behaviour depends on cognitions and consequences
 tailor intervention to offender learning style, motivation, abilities
and strengths
Changing Course
1994-to present
Community supervision was now premised on “what works” and
all of our interactions with offenders became based on the principles of
RNR (Risk Need Responsivity)
Risk: those who pose the highest risk get the most service.
Need: discovery of what factors are related to criminal conduct and
address those needs through appropriate programs targeting
behavioral change and management of risk.
Responsivity: assisting in the learning of new pro-social skills by the
offender
Risk Needs Assessment
Latvian
English
Sex Offender Supervision
New Directions
While BC Corrections was adopting the RNR principles into the case
management of the general and domestic violence offenders, the sex offender
assessments that were becoming available were also changing. Probation
officers who were supervising sex offenders had already been utilizing the RNR
principles prior to it’s formal introduction into mainstream supervision.
The work of Dr. Karl Hanson and Dr. Andrew Harris was providing new
and more accurate assessments specifically, the Static 99 and the
Stable/Acute 2000.
BC Corrections was part of the National study of Drs. Hanson and
Harris and implemented the use of these risk instruments as their
predictive validity was superior to the Sex Offender Risk Assessment
(SORA).
By the early 2000’s, community probation staff who were supervising
sex offenders were being trained on how to score the Static 99 and the
Stable 2000.
Relapse Prevention to Behavioural
Progression to Self Management Plan
Relapse Prevention (RP) and Self Management (SM) strategies are used
to reduce sex offender recidivism due to the operating premise of
of cognitive behavioral interventions.
The interaction of a variety of factors, external and internal to the
offender, influence whether or not he will re-offend.
Differences between Relapse Prevention
and Self Management
RP was found not to have relevance to those offenders who have
neutral or positive experiences or goals prior to actively
planning an offence. It mostly focused on risk avoidance, and
not on pro-social skill building
SM interventions try to replace maladaptive or deviant responses
with adaptive pro social beliefs and behavior by targeting the
specific areas where the offender is deficient.
SM also emphasized the offender take responsibility for their actions
and recognizes the behavioral progression that preceded and followed
the sexual offences. It also identifies situations which place them at
risk and assists in developing strategies to prevent recidivism.
Risk Needs and Responsivity in Sex
Offender Supervision
The shift in adopting to the behavioural progression/self management
model of interventions from the earlier use of relapse prevention with sex
offenders was assisted by the fact that BC Corrections had already been
training its’ probation officers in pro-social modeling, motivational
interviewing and role clarification with offenders.
This prior training was valuable for probation officers who were working
with sex offenders to take on a more collaborative approach in supervision
of the offenders as they were already working within a risk, needs,
responsivity model.
Training probation staff to supervise sexual
offenders in 2011:
Mandatory courses and subjects
Risk Assessment and Case Management
Effective and Purposeful Interventions
Introduction to sexual deviancy
Cognitive Distortions
Home Visit Policy
Behavioural Progression
Risk Principles
The effects of sex offender supervision on the Probation Officer
Static 99R
Stable/Acute 2007
Sex Offender Maintenance (Group)
Challenges:
Overcoming personal bias and fear in using the risk
assessments eg: Probation officer “feels” the person is more
of a risk than assessment instruments have him categorized.
Maintenance of the effective use of relationship skills,
reinforcement and disapproval, prosocial modeling and
problem solving.
Male to female staff ratio of probation staff.
Avoiding burnout, cynicism and cognitive stress associated
to working with this population.
Accomplishments:
•Evidence based risk assessments and case planning written in policy
•The ability to demonstrate pro social modeling by sex offender supervisors is
•viewed as a core strength
•Training of probation officers directly related to using the model of risk, needs
•and responsivity
•Supervision intervention models that reflect offender risk
•A common language of offender management amongst all staff
•More collaboration between treatment providers and probation staff