Treatment non-completion in high-risk violent offenders: looking beyond criminal risk and criminogenic needs

Abstract

Examinations of treatment attrition form an important – although sometimes neglected – component of evaluating a correctional programme's effectiveness in reducing recidivism. Previous research has identified offender characteristics that predict non-completion. This study investigated non-completion in 138 high-risk, violent male prisoners attending an intensive cognitive–behavioural programme. Almost one-third of men who commenced it did not complete the 7-month programme. Most asked to leave of their own accord, or were removed for ongoing offending. In contrast to previous research, no support was found for the hypothesis that those who terminated treatment prematurely were more in need of intervention than those who completed the programme; non-completers did not differ from completers on static estimates of criminal risk, PCL-R scores, demographic variables or self-report scales measuring dynamic risk factors. It was concluded that successful prediction using variables related to criminal risk and criminogenic need depends both on the characteristics of programme participants, and on contextual factors such as programme policies: when high-risk high needs offenders are a programme's target clientele, variables related to risk and need will have limited predictive utility. From a practice perspective, the programme was successful in retaining through to completion a relatively untreatable group: high-risk offenders with moderate to high PCL-R scores.

Keywords:

• treatment programme attrition
• high-risk violent offenders
• correctional rehabilitation
• outcome evaluation
• treatment completion

Acknowledgements

Funding from the New Zealand Department of Corrections supported this research. My thanks to Corrections staff for assistance and practical support with data collection; especially Branko Coebergh, David Riley, Alex Skelton, David Wales, and Nick Wilson, and to research assistants Elizabeth Ross and Paul Oxnam. Finally thank you to Ralph Serin for helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Notes

1. Data from the MCMI-III are reported in Polaschek and Wilson (2008).

2. Including 84 men from the high-risk sample in Polaschek (in press).

3. Differences in actual rates of reconviction for violence reported by Polaschek (in press), and risk estimates based on the RoC*RoI are expected, because the RoC*RoI is a predictor of imprisonment, not violence.

4. In some cases two versions of a test are listed, reflecting a change-over to the revised version in the later part of the evaluation period.

5. Details can be obtained from the author.

6. This algorithm is still considered the most valid method for carrying out such comparisons (personal communication with David Cooke, 6 May 2005).

7. Replication of the Ogloff et al. (1990) time-in-treatment analyses using their PCL-R cut-off of 27 to create psychopathic and non-psychopathic groups also found no differences.

8. When questioned, participants have indicated they are imagining favourite violent movie heroes.