The use of a structured guide to assess proxies of offending behaviours and change in custodial settings
| Pages | 83-100 |
| Date | 11 May 2015 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-10-2013-0048 |
| Published date | 11 May 2015 |
| Author | Audrey Gordon,Stephen Wong |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Forensic practice |
The use of a structured guide to assess
proxies of offending behaviours and
change in custodial settings
Audrey Gordon and Stephen Wong
Audrey Gordon is a Registered
Psychologist and Professional
Affiliate of the Department of
Psychology, University of
Saskatchewan, Saskatoon,
Canada.
Stephen Wong is Honorary
Professor at the School of
Medicine, University of
Nottingham, UK and Adjunct
Professor, Department of
Psychology, University of
Saskatchewan, Canada.
Abstract
Purpose –Within controlled environments such as prisons or forensic facilities, strong sanctions and other
factors can inhibit the expression of offence-linked behaviours otherwise observable in community settings.
For example, institutional restrictions may distort the offender’s habitual expression of aggressive behaviours
such that the individual’s aggressive characteristics are less intense or observable. Thus, the influences of
controlled settings can make it difficult for staff to capture idiosyncratic evidence of change or lack thereof
over time or with treatment. The purpose of this paper is to describe an assessment and measurement
framework that can be used to assist treatment and correctional staff collectively focus attention on relevant
characteristics and behaviours idiosyncratically linked to offending.
Design/methodology/approach –The authors use the terms “offence analogue behaviours (OAB)”to
describe proxies of offence behaviours observable in controlled settings and “offence replacement
behaviours (ORB)”as the contrasting positive, pro-socialskills and strategies that the individualimplements to
change and manageproblem areas linked to aggression and criminality.This paper discusses the application
and practical utility of the framework and an associated assessment and measurement tool; the Offence
Analogue and Offence Replacement Behaviour Guide (Gordonand Wong, 2009-2013).
Findings –The OAB and ORB Guide has shown to be useful by directing the attention of treatment
personnel to the here-and-now offence related behaviours displayed by offenders in custodial settings. In the
absence of such focused attention, relevant proxy behaviours can often be masked in these highly controlled
environments. The Guide is therefore a useful adjunct to identify such behaviours for treatment and
for assessing treatment-related changes.
Research limitations/implications –The OAB/ORB Guide was developed based on a conceptual
framework derived from the empirical literature on correctional treatment, risk assessment, psychological
theories and clinical practice. While there has been some positive pilot use of the Guide’s utility and
preliminary research, at this point, empirical evidence is still lacking.
Practical implications –The OAB/ORB Guide provides quantified and structured guidelines to assess
offence proxy and offence replacement behaviours observable day-to-day within controlled environments,
such as during custody or supervised release to the community.
Originality/value –This guide was developed to assist staff with the identification, documentation and
measurement of idiosyncratic negative and positive offence-related proxy behaviours observable across
custodial or supervised contexts. Accordingly, the authors suggest that OAB/ORB guide information can be
used to evaluate changes in risk over treatment and/or time. Further, the authors describe how this fra-
mework may enhance the efficacy of multi-disciplinary treatment and management teams. Two cases are
used to illustrate the application of the Guide.
Keywords Treatment, Risk assessment, Offence analogue, Offence parallel behaviours, Proxy behaviours
Paper type Case study
Introduction
Violence is a significant public health issue and can affect people of all age groups, sex, and
social economic status (Krug et al., 2002). Individuals who have committed violent acts are often
Received 26 October 2013
Revised 18 January 2014
Accepted 19 January 2014
DOI 10.1108/JFP-10-2013-0048 VOL. 17 NO. 2 2015, pp. 83-100, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 2050-8794
j
JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PRACTICE
j
PAG E 83
held under license in secure facilities but with access to support and rehabilitation services
to improve health, functioning and to reduce risks of future violence. To reduce violence risk,
assessment to identify relevant targe ts for treatment are essential before appro priate
interventions can take place. We have argued elsewhere that criminogenic needs or dynamic
(changeable) risk factors linked to violence should be identified as treatment targets for violence-
prone individuals and can be used to guide risk reduction treatment (see Wong and Gordon,
2006; Wong et al., 2007; Wong and Gordon, 2013). Treatment improvement should in turn, lead
to a reduction of future violent risk.
However, antisocial or violent behaviours observable in the community may take on different
appearances in controlled settings, such as in prisons where close monitoring as well
as swift and severe sanctions for mis-behaviours are the norm. In controlled environments,
blatant antisocial acts that are easy to detect in the community could be “repackaged”or almost
totally inhibited due to the absence of potential victims, precursors, or circumstances within
institutional environments. For example, an offender incarcerated for offences against children
may resort to viewing and masturbating to images of children in magazines. An offender with
psychopathic tendencies who swindled and defrauded others while in the community may resort
to manipulating peers and staff members during incarceration. Prisoners under solitary or highly
restrictive regimes to reduce physical acting out behaviours, may substitute self-harming or
verbal provocations for physical aggression. These proxy behaviours within custodial settings are
often good indications that the root problems underlying the antisocial behaviours have remained
intact. On the flip side, one must also recognize and give credit to offenders when they replace the
problem behaviours with pro-social behaviours that mitigate future violence and criminality. At
times, similar to “bad”behaviours, “good”behaviours may not be as easily observable by staff, or,
if observed, are often overlooked and not documented. Such behaviours also tend to be
denigrated within the offender sub-culture.
We have used “offence analogue behaviours”or OABs to specifically describe the here-and-now
manifestation of the offender’s offence-related antisocial or violence problems within custodial
or highly controlled settings (Gordon and Wong, 2010). We posit that OABs are idiosyncratic to
the individual, linked to the individual’s criminogenic needs areas, and usually manifest in
relation to the special conditions imposed in the individual’s environment. Similarly, we proposed
that “offence replacement behaviours”or ORBs are the socially appropriate skills and behaviours
the individual has acquired to replace or manage past violence and antisocial behaviours. Usually,
ORBs are introduced to the offender in a systematic manner through therapy, programmes,
modeling, practice, reinforcement and so forth. Treatment improvement should be evidenced by
both a gradual increase in the frequency of ORBs and a corresponding gradual decrease in the
frequency of OABs (Gordon and Wong, 2010). At the end of successful intervention, individuals
should have mostly ORBs, few OABs, and their recidivism risk should be reduced. With further
practice and support, ORBs should become an integral part of the person’s behavioural
repertoire and are essential for successful reintegration into the community or for the person
to be transferred to a lower secure setting. Figure 1 depicts this sequence of events.
What we refer to as OAB has obvious similarities but also significant differences with the concept of
Offence Paralleling Behaviours or OPB. The term OPB (Jones, 1997, 2004) has been used to describe
“the pattern of behaviours, thoughts, and emotions leading up to the offence”(Jones, 2004, p. 39).
In essence, OPB is similar to the concept of an offence chain or cycle, or the notion of “behavioural
attractor”(Carver and Scheier, 1998, cited in Jones, 2004, p. 39) and signatures described by Jones
(2004, p. 39). While the theoretical underpinnings of OPB draw heavily on interpersonal and
attachment theories (see Gordon and Wong, 2010), the OAB/ORB constructs are derived primarily
from the work of Andrew and Bonta’s Psychology of Criminal Conduct and the risk, need
and responsivity framework (Andrew and Bonta, 1995-2010). As such, in practice, OABs are here
and now manifestations of the individual’s criminogenic needs as discussed elsewhere in the paper.
Assessing risk, treatment targets and using OABs and ORBs as indic ators of
treatment change
In the remainder of this paper, we illustrate the application of the principles discussed above
using the Violence Risk Scale (VRS; Wong and Gordon, (1999-2003), 2006) and a
complementary tool, the OAB and ORB Guide (Gordon and Wong, 2009-2013).
PAG E 84
j
JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PRACTICE
j
VOL. 17 NO. 2 2015
To continue reading
Request your trial