Abstract
An important analytical framework in research on non-specific (i.e., common) factors that may contribute to successful prevention and treatment of delinquency is the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model (Andrews et al., 1990). The risk principle states that the intensity of treatment should match the risk of (re)committing a criminal offense, the need principle states that dynamic (i.e., changeable) criminogenic risk factors should be assessed by agencies and targeted in treatment, and the responsivity principle states that treatment (cognitive-behavioral) should be fine-tailored to the learning style, motivation, abilities, and strengths of the (potential) offender (Andrews & Bonta, 2006). Andrews and Bonta (2010) provided empirical evidence showing that interventions that adhere to the RNR model can substantially reduce criminal offense recidivism.
The present issue of the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology (IJOTCC) presents a number of articles that provide the RNR model with further empirical content, as they focus on the identification and assessment of culturally specific criminogenic risk factors, including risks for unsuccessful rehabilitation after detention, and the effectiveness of a culturally specific treatment program for sex offenders, which particularly deals with the responsivity principle, that is, adjusting treatment to specific characteristics of Inuit sex offenders. Applying the responsivity principle would suggest that both the assessment of culturally specific risk factors and the prospect of targeting these factors in culturally specific treatment programs may contribute to the effectiveness of judicial interventions (Van der Put, Stams, Deković, Hoeve, & Van der Laan, 2013).
Tzoumakis, Lussier, and Corrado examined intergenerational transmission of antisocial behavior through parenting practices in mothers of preschoolers. They found that maternal delinquency was associated with both adverse parenting practices (e.g., inconsistent discipline) and children’s physical aggression. Interestingly, mothers showing negative parenting practices also showed positive parenting behaviors, providing the opportunity to focus on existing parenting skills in treatment targeting childhood aggression. Non-Caucasian children were less aggressive, although their mothers showed more negative parenting practices. Therefore, a negative parenting style may be considered a risk factor for aggression that is culturally specific. Notably, Assink et al. (2015) showed in their meta-analysis that childhood aggression is the most important dynamic risk factor for persistent delinquent behavior among juveniles. It therefore seems relevant to target childhood aggression in preventive interventions targeting persistent delinquency. These interventions have been shown to be equally effective for different ethnic groups—in particular behavioral-oriented programs, focusing on parenting skills training, behavioral modeling, or behavioral contracting—but only if matched to the level of risk of (re)offending (de Vries, Hoeve, Assink, Stams, & Asscher, 2015).
Shepherd advocates the use of empirically well-validated culturally specific risk assessment instruments for violence, although he admits that the cross-cultural uniformity of the “big eight” risk factors for delinquency has already been established by Andrews and Bonta (2006). Such cross-cultural uniformity was also found in two recent studies by Van der Put et al. (2011, Van der Put et al., 2012), showing cross-cultural equality in both the prevalence and impact of criminogenic risk factors. Nevertheless, developing culturally specific assessment instruments seems to be the next step in improving the predictive power of structured risk assessment instruments (Van der Put et al., 2013). I fully agree with Shepherd that the use of unstructured clinical judgment in the prediction of violence is potentially harmful, because it does not perform better than chance (see Dawes, Faust, & Meehl, 1989).
Kishi and colleagues established the validity of the Japanese Criminal Thinking Inventory (JCTI), a self-rating instrument assessing cognitive patterns specific to criminal behavior, which was derived from the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS). Thinking styles assessed with the JCTI largely matched thinking styles measured with the PICTS, showing cross-cultural generalizability. However, a number of original PICTS items could not be used due to cultural assessment biases, as the Western culture emphasizes individuality and the Japanese culture belongingness and interdependence. This finding underlines the need for culture-specific knowledge on criminogenic needs.
Pechorro, Barrosso, Maroco, Vieira, and Goncalves examined the psychometric properties of the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV) among Portuguese juvenile delinquents, whereas most validation studies have been conducted in North America. Support was found for a three-factor model, including an interpersonal, affective, and behavioral dimension, which supports the cross-cultural validity of the psychopathy construct.
Stewart, Hamilton, Wilton, Cousineau, and Varrette found evidence for the effectiveness of the culturally specific Tupiq (traditional Inuit tent) program for Inuit sex offenders, which focuses on thinking and behavior patterns associated with sexual offending, using culturally specific and linguistically sensitive materials.
Edwards and Mottarella examined desired social distance toward previously convicted offenders in university students from the perspective of modified labeling theory, which assumes that offenders adopt various coping strategies (secrecy, withdrawal, or preventive telling) to deal with their expectations of discrimination, stigma, or social distance. Actual social distance and ineffective strategies of offenders to cope with social distance increase the risk for recidivism, because it excludes offenders upon release from many conventional protective activities, such as work. It was found that disclosure of therapy participation decreased respondents’ desire for social distance. Therefore, disclosing treatment completion might contribute to successful reintegration. The article of Edwards and Mottarella constitutes an important contribution to research on aftercare, which shows that offenders should be well-supported after their release from prison to facilitate rehabilitation (James, Stams, Asscher, Van der Laan, & De Roo, 2013).
Although differences between individuals within cultures may be larger than differences between cultures, the articles in the present issue of the IJOTCC show that risk assessment and treatment should account for cultural differences. This may be achieved through developing culturally specific risk assessment instruments or by including culturally specific items in existing risk assessment instruments. In some cases, culturally specific treatment will be necessary, but in most cases, it suffices to account for cultural differences in the delivery of evidence-based treatment according to the RNR model, in particular the responsivity principle (Hoogsteder et al., 2014), as two meta-analyses showed that most culturally non-specific or “generic” programs were equally effective for different ethnic groups in the domain of juvenile delinquency (Wilson, Lipsey, & Soydan, 2003) and psychosocial interventions in general (Miranda et al., 2005). To conclude, only interventions that are sensitive to the individual criminogenic needs of each person at risk for (re)offending, which may be culturally specific or not, can be effective in turning risks into opportunities for successful rehabilitation.