The multifactor offender readiness model
Introduction
There has been a great deal of research and clinical attention paid to the issue of offender rehabilitation over the last 20 years or so. The innovative work of Canadian, British, and American researchers has led to the refinement of rehabilitation theory and the formulation of explicit practice guidelines (e.g., Andrews & Bonta, 1998, Layton-MacKenzie, 2000, McGuire, 2001). This work has been empirically guided, and indeed, the determination to discern what actually works in the correctional domain has been a striking and welcome change. The field has literally been transformed and the call to utilize only empirically supported therapies and strategies increasingly accepted. The emergence of a risk management perspective and its attendant risk–need model of offender rehabilitation have provided the field with an organisational framework from within which to guide service providers, policy makers, and correctional administrators. Thus, evidence-based offender treatments have become an established part of efforts to reduce crime, and prison, probation, and forensic mental health services all now offer such treatments Day & Howells, 2002, McGuire, 2001.
In this paper, we suggest that even greater reductions in recidivism than those demonstrated in programs that adhere to evidence-based principles of risk and needs can be made when programs are able to be responsive to individual needs. While risk–need assessments can guide decisions regarding both selection of appropriate candidates for treatment and appropriate targets for treatment (most commonly those areas of need that are functionally related to the offending), they offer little by way of guidance on how well any intervention is likely to be received, or on the extent to which programs are able to respond effectively to individual offender needs. The level of fit between the client and the treatment is increasingly acknowledged as a critical factor in effective treatment programs (e.g., Sobell & Sobell, 1999), and is evidenced by a growth of interest in integrative models of therapy in clinical psychology (e.g., Ryle, 1997). Effectiveness of treatment programs is likely to be a result of both the availability of high quality and responsive treatments and efforts to encourage individuals to enter and stay in treatment.
We argue that there has been little attempt in the literature to distinguish between three distinct, although related, constructs: treatment motivation, responsivity, and readiness. Motivation involves assessing whether or not someone really wants to enter treatment and therefore is willing to change his or her behavior in some respect (e.g., cease to behave aggressively). Typical clinical criteria for deciding that offenders are motivated to enter treatment include expressions of regret for their offenses, a desire to change, and sounding enthusiastic about the treatments on offer. In an important respect, the judgement that an offender is motivated for therapy is essentially a prediction that he or she will engage in, and complete, therapy. In current practice, it is widely accepted that offender motivation constitutes an important requirement for selection into rehabilitation programs, and therapists are expected to have the skills to initiate, enhance, and sustain motivation in reluctant individuals. Ironically, despite a plethora of literature on motivational interviewing and related interventions, there has been comparatively little attention paid to clarifying the relevant underlying mechanisms or consideration of the relationship between motivational states and other aspects of treatment preparedness. Relatedly, there is no consensus as to what is meant by offenders' motivation and no systematic examination of the factors that influence it (McMurran & Ward, submitted for publication).
The responsivity principle is used to refer to the use of a style and mode of intervention that engages the interest of the client group and takes into account their relevant characteristics, such as cognitive ability, learning style, and values (Andrews & Bonta, 1998). In other words, responsivity refers to the extent to which offenders are able to absorb the content of the program and subsequently change their behavior. Responsivity can be further divided into internal and external responsivity (Andrews, 2001). Attention to internal responsivity factors requires therapists to match the content and pace of sessions to specific client attributes such as personality and cognitive maturity, while external responsivity refers to a range of general and specific issues, such as the use of active and participatory methods. External responsivity can be divided further into staff and setting characteristics Kennedy, 2001, Serin & Kennedy, 1997. Within the broad responsivity principle lays an invitation to attend to an offender's motivation to engage in therapy and to commit to change. Responsivity, as usually understood in the rehabilitation literature, is primarily concerned with therapist and therapy features, and is therefore essentially concerned with adjusting treatment delivery in a way that maximizes learning.
The major problem with the way the responsivity principle has been formulated is that there has been relatively little attention paid to the underlying constructs or an account of how the different processes and structures impacting on responsivity are interrelated. In our view, there has been a failure to realize that the ability to capitalise on therapeutic opportunities also involves the dynamic interaction between person, therapy, and contextual factors. We suggest that a robust construct of treatment readiness has the conceptual resources to take these complex interactions into account.
The concept of readiness was originally articulated in an offender context by Serin (1998) and Serin and Kennedy (1997), although it has also previously been used in offender substance use treatment programs (e.g., DeLeon & Jainchill, 1986). It can be broadly defined as the presence of characteristics (states or dispositions) within either the client or the therapeutic situation, which are likely to promote engagement in therapy and that, thereby, are likely to enhance therapeutic change (Howells & Day, 2002). To be ready for treatment means that the person is motivated (i.e., wants to, has the will to), is able to respond appropriately (i.e., perceives he or she can), finds it relevant and meaningful (i.e., can engage), and has the capacities (i.e., is able) to successfully enter the treatment program. Ascertaining whether an offender is motivated to enter treatment involves assessing their volitional state: Do they genuinely want and intend to enter treatment?
We argue that the constructs of motivation and responsivity are narrower in scope than that of readiness and unable to cover the range of conditions that this construct can. In other words, the construct of readiness is the more inclusive one and incorporates both the constructs of motivation and program responsivity.
At this point it is necessary to consider the claim that in some formulations of responsivity, there is a reference to obstacles that prevent engagement in treatment (Serin, 1998), and that the addition of this feature increases its utility and makes it conceptually equivalent to our formulation of treatment readiness (see below). We propose that this claim is mistaken and that the readiness concept is the richer and more useful one. First, readiness refers to the required conditions for engagement in treatment, while the notion of obstacles refers to a lack of these factors. In other words, readiness directs individuals to ask what skills, etc., are required for entry into a program, while the concept of responsivity obstacles simply focuses attention on what is preventing treatment engagement or responsiveness—a positive feature rather than a negative feature search. It is easier conceptually to focus on what is required to complete or engage in a task than on what is preventing such engagement, and also of greater utility. There are a thousand ways things can go wrong (i.e., obstacles), while it is only necessary to find one way to solve a problem (i.e., required conditions). Second, the responsivity concept has not really been developed into a systematic model and as such lacks coherence; it tends to be operationalised as a list of factors (see Serin, 1998). That is, it is not immediately obvious how the different factors converge, whereas this is clear in the readiness model. Third, the readiness model specifies what the required conditions for treatment engagement are and what can go wrong, whereas the responsivity construct is more ad hoc in nature: the list of obstacles depends on what empirical research discovers and therefore may change over time. Finally, the readiness model deals with contextual (e.g., family support, resource availability, relationships) and temporal issues and is broader in scope. In other words, it is clearer about the internal and external conditions required to engage in treatment and explains how they are interrelated (it is also inclusive of responsivity). It is a better model because of its greater scope, coherence, testability, and utility (fertility).
In summary, while the responsivity principle focuses on obstacles or what is preventing treatment engagement, readiness is concerned with the conditions required for treatment engagement. Readiness is positively focused, conceptually easier to apply, broader with its focus on issues such as family and context, and overall is a more coherent model. In this paper, we outline the multifactor offender readiness model (MORM). After outlining the conceptual model in some detail, we discuss its clinical and research implications for the treatment of offenders.
Section snippets
The multifactor offender readiness model
In a recent review paper, Howells and Day (2002) explored the obstacles to the effective treatment of offenders presenting with anger problems. They identified seven possible impediments:
- 1.
The complexity of the cases presenting with anger problems. This included the coexistence of mental disorders with aggressive behavior.
- 2.
The setting in which anger management is conducted.
- 3.
Existing client inferences about their anger problem. For example, inferences indicating that the anger was viewed as
Modification of low readiness
In this paper, we have defined the concept of readiness as presence of characteristics (states or dispositions) within either the client or the therapeutic situation, which are likely to promote engagement in therapy and which, thereby, are likely to enhance therapeutic change (following Howells & Day, 2002). According to this definition, readiness to change persistent offending behavior requires the existence of certain internal and external conditions within a particular context. Thus, we
Conclusions
In outlining the MORM model of readiness, our intention has been to provide those involved with assessment of offenders, with a conceptual framework by which they can also identify those factors that are required to successfully engage in a treatment program. In our view, it is likely that offenders with low readiness across multiple areas will be those that either do not complete treatment or for whom treatment does not impact on their offending. That is not to say, however, that high
Acknowledgements
This research was jointly funded by Corrections Victoria and the Australian Research Council (ARC Linkage-Project).
References (108)
- et al.
Adolescent help-seeking: What do they get help for and from whom?
Journal of Adolescence
(1995) - et al.
Process variables in the treatment of sexual offenders: A review of the literature
Aggression and Violent Behaviour
(2003) Principles of effective correctional programs
- et al.
The psychology of criminal conduct
(1998) - et al.
Expectations and preferences
- Aunins, E. (2003). The impact of mental health factors on sexual offender program attrition. Unpublished Masters...
- et al.
Goal constructs in psychology: Structure process and content
Psychological Bulletin
(1996) - et al.
Effectiveness of pre-release alcohol education courses for young offenders in a penal institution
Behavioural Psychotherapy
(1991) - et al.
Therapeutic alliance and clinical practice
Psychotherapy in Australia
(2001) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control
(1997)
Negative self-efficacy and goal effects re-visited
Journal of Applied Psychology
Losing control: How and why people fail at self-regulation
Predicting treatment response in correctional settings
Forum on Corrections Research
Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind
Personality disorders
Psychotherapy
Guidelines for the systematic treatment of the depressed patient
Therapeutic jurisprudence and “good lives”: A rehabilitation framework for corrections
Australian Psychologist
Maximizing therapeutic effects in treating sexual offenders in an Australian correctional system
Behavioral Sciences and the Law
Comparing violent and non-violent female offenders on risk and need
Forum on Corrections Research
The responsivity principle and offender rehabilitation
Forum on Corrections Research
Theory and research on the therapeutic working alliance: New directions
Client gender and the implementation of goal-based therapeutic community programs
Journal of Drug Issues
Empathy inhibition, intimacy deficits, and attachment difficulties in sex offenders
A theoretical model of the influences of shame and guilt on sexual offending
The aggression questionnaire
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Key issues in the provision of correctional services to women
Goal setting among adolescents: A comparison of delinquent, at-risk, and not at-risk youth
Journal of Educational Psychology
Goal setting and reputation enhancement: Behavioural choices amongst delinquent, at-risk, and not at-risk adolescents
Legal and Criminological Psychology
Self-regulatory perspectives on personality
Therapeutic jurisprudence in the courts
Behavioral Sciences and the Law
Cultural and contextual influences in mental health help-seeking: A focus on ethnic minority youth
Journal of Consulting and Counseling Psychology
Community mental health and ethnic minority populations
Community Mental Health Journal
Enhancing health knowledge, health beliefs and health behaviour in Poland through a health promoting television program series
Journal of Health Communication
Multicultural competence: Theory and practice for correctional psychologists
Psychological treatments for rehabilitating offenders: Evidence based practice comes of age
Australian Psychologist
Brief psychotherapy in two-plus-one sessions with a young offender population
Cognitive and Behavioural Psychotherapy
Offenders with mental retardation
Attendance and drop-out from outpatient psychotherapy in New Zealand
Community Mental Health in New Zealand
Attitudes and intentions to seek professional psychological help for personal problems or suicidal thinking
International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling
Prisoners' willingness to approach prison officers for support: The officers' views
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation
Circumstance, motivation and readiness, and suitability as correlates of treatment tenure
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
The psychology of ultimate concerns
Perceived coercion and treatment need among mentally ill parolees
Criminal Justice and Behavior
Motivating humans: Goals, emotions and personal agency beliefs
Therapeutic components of psychotherapy: A 25 year progress report of research
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease
Research on client variables in psychotherapy
Cited by (233)
Rehabilitative progress in prison: Some challenges and possibilities
2022, Aggression and Violent BehaviorIncarcerated older persons’ motivation to engage in criminal court-mandated treatment: Findings from a qualitative study
2021, Forensic Science International: Mind and LawUnsupervised short leave in forensic addiction treatment: Is there an influence on treatment progress?
2024, Monatsschrift fur Kriminologie und StrafrechtsreformExamination of Group Based Domestic Violence Perpetrator Intervention Processes
2024, Journal for Specialists in Group Work