RE-LAUNCH OF ACCREDITED PROGRAMME EVALUATION MEASURES (PSYCHOMETRICS

)
PURPOSE
To provide information about the re-launch of the Evaluation Measures (Psychometrics) for the General Offending Behaviour Programmes.

Probation Circular
REFERENCE NO: 44/2004 ISSUE DATE: 28 July 2004 IMPLEMENTATION DATE: Immediate EXPIRY DATE: June 2008 TO: Chairs of Probation Boards Chief Officers of Probation Secretaries of Probation Boards CC: Board Treasurers Regional Managers AUTHORISED BY: Meg Blumsom, Head of Offender Behaviour Programme ATTACHED: Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E

ACTION
Chief Officers should ensure that: 1. Areas make arrangements to adopt the revised measures. 2. Areas implement the changes to quality assurance and administration. 3. The Evaluation Measures are input into either IAPS or the Excel spreadsheet and returned to NPD as required. 4. Programmes Managers nominate a contact responsible for the Evaluation Measures. 5. Appropriate staff attend the regional re-launch events and research meeting.

SUMMARY
The circular announces the re-launch of the Accredited Programme Evaluation Measures. Steps to be taken to improve the quality of the Evaluation Measures are described. Information about how areas might make best use of the measures are provided. Details of the new Evaluation Manual and test materials are included as appendices. The arrangements for training events and meetings related to the relaunch are provided.

RELEVANT PREVIOUS PROBATION CIRCULARS
PC123/2001 Psychometric Testing for GOBPs PC152/2001 What Works Implementation III PC52/2002 Psychometric Testing Strategy and Training PC64/2002 Psychometric Test Review PC74/2002 PC23/2003 review of Psychometric tests PC 36 /2004 IAPS software

CONTACT FOR ENQUIRIES
Evaluation Measures: Danny Clark, Head of Psychology, tel. 0207 217 0675 Relaunch: Diane Anderson, PIM, tel. 0207 217 8895 IAPS: Liz Calvert, tel. 0207 217 8046 Returning data to NPD: Wendy Smith-Yau, tel. 0207 217 8148 Test Booklets: Razak Moghal, tel. 0207 217 0679 Contact nominees: Ruth Taylor, tel. 0207 217 0677

National Probation Directorate
Horseferry House, Dean Ryle Street, London, SW1P 2AW General Enquiries: 020 7217 0659 Fax: 020 7217 0660

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection

Why is there a need for a re-launch?
The re-launch of the General Offending Behaviour / Cognitive Skills Programmes Evaluation Measures is being undertaken for a number of reasons: • To reduce the number of measures being undertaken. This process commenced with the previous withdrawal of three measures detailed in PC 64/2002. The battery is now reduced to three questionnaires for General Offending Behaviour Programmes. The questionnaire booklets have been re-designed. • To establish a clear and consistent understanding of the new measures and their use, and improve overall performance underpinning evidence based practice. • To improve the consistency and quality of data collation. Recent trawls of information demonstrated that many test booklets are incomplete with a high level of missing data, and inconsistency in the data collated. • To align measures with HMPS. The Correctional Service Accreditation Panel has approved the amended measures for both Services. • To introduce a measure of attitudes towards racial diversity. The re-launch will be regional and the key issues and messages will be consistent; however, the means of addressing them will vary. For some regions this circular might be all that is required to make the appropriate alterations to practice, others may wish to organise events to adopt changes. NPD staff are available as a resource for regional launch events, but rather than adopt a ‘one-size-fits-all’, the aim is for the events to be tailored to local needs. The responsibility for coordinating the relaunch within regions rests with the Regional What Works Manager.

The purpose of intermediate (psychometric) Evaluation Measures
The purpose of intermediate (psychometric) evaluation is to assess the impact of specific interventions upon groups of individuals who take part in accredited programmes. The 'what works' literature highlights the importance of having evaluation procedures built into programmes to ensure that they are meeting their stated aims and objectives, as part of a continuous process of review. The ultimate effectiveness of programmes for offenders is determined by whether participants change their behaviour, measured via a reduction in the severity, type and number of re-convictions. Reconviction studies take a minimum of 2-3 years to complete and give little immediate feedback to staff and evaluators on changes in behaviour. Psychometric assessments are standardised self-report measures which provide an intermediate measure of the impact of programmes, reporting on changes in attitude and behaviour post programme delivery. The main purposes of these assessments are: to quality control programme delivery; to measure the effectiveness of the programme in specific target areas; to evaluate the programme in accordance with accreditation criteria; and to inform the design and development of the programme. Appendix A includes the Evaluation Manual which details the assessment measures to be used for the GOBPs (General Offending Behaviour Programmes). Using the measures The Evaluation Measures used for the GOBPs are not specifically designed for individual feedback. (This is not necessarily the case for tests used in some other accredited programmes, e.g. sex offender assessments and tests which are completed as part of a programme session). If feedback is demanded for an individual on a GOBP, it should be undertaken by someone who is competent to interpret the measures, as advised by the British Psychological Society. The reason for this is that a detailed knowledge is needed not just of the measures and the meaning of the results, but also of the principles of psychometric testing. Psychometric tests should not be interpreted in isolation; knowledge is needed of the offender’s performance during the programme and an interview needs to be held in which personal factors, which may have influenced the results, can be identified. The use of the scores from the measures at group level can provide good local management information about the effective operation of programmes. Group results can be compared by site or area over time. The analyses of attrition rates and the selection of offenders can be improved by the addition of Evaluation Measure information. NPD will provide reports on the use of the measures and will evaluate programmes on a national basis. An example of recent analysis using the existing measures can be found in Appendix B. The analysis demonstrates that the Think First programme produces significant changes in the attitudes and thinking of offenders who complete the programme, but there is variability across areas as to the level of change achieved. Probation areas and regions are encouraged to use their own data locally to evaluate programmes. A newsletter is now planned to promote and share existing ideas and practice of how accredited programme research and information is PC44/2004 - Re-launch of Accredited Programme Evaluation Measures (Psychometrics) 2

constructively being utilised. We would welcome any studies that have been undertaken by areas to include them in the newsletter. Please send them to: Ruth Taylor, Room 223, 2nd Floor, Horseferry House, Dean Ryle Street, London. Email – ruth.taylor@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk NPD has organised two research seminars aimed at raising awareness about using the aggregated data for management information and programme evaluation. The meetings will be of particular interest to Research and Information Officers or psychologists. The events will be held on 8/9/04 at NPD, London and 1/10/04 at the Yorkshire and Humberside Consortium, Leeds. Probation areas are asked to nominate 1 or 2 members of staff to attend one of these events. The Nomination Form is found at Appendix C.

Quality Assurance
There have been a number of shortcomings in the administration, entry and collation of the test measures in the past. This has resulted in much of the data collected by areas not reaching NPD and a large percentage of the data received being of insufficient quality because of missing data or identifiers. Some of these problems have arisen due to system failures and others may be due to lack of clarity about how the process should be managed and quality assured. Programme Manager The Programme Managers’ Strategy states the need to identify a responsible manager for overseeing performance management regarding the completion of data and input into IAPS. It is the responsibility of the Programme Manager to ensure that resources are in place for the administration of the Evaluation Measures. The Programme Manager should also ensure that that the data is forwarded to NPD for evaluation, along with other information required for monitoring and evaluation purposes. Monitoring and evaluation procedures will be audited by NPD on behalf of the accreditation panel. Periodic checks (ideally every three months) should be made on the quality of data being returned to NPD by the Programme Manager. The Programme Manager has a responsibility to promote the importance of the tests throughout the organisation. IAPS The new GOBP Evaluation Measures will be available in IAPS by the week commencing 9 August 2004. PC 36/2004 explains how the data should be entered into IAPS and sent to NPD. IAPS will contain the old and the new measures for a limited time until all areas have completed the change. IAPS also provides reporting options for areas including output of the data in a spreadsheet format which will allow local interrogation of the measures. For areas not yet using IAPS (i.e. the non-NPSISS areas, Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, Bedfordshire and Norfolk) an Excel spreadsheet is available from NPD, which allows the data to be entered and scored. The scores can then be transferred to a spreadsheet. Those areas who cannot yet use IAPs must return a copy of the spreadsheet to Wendy Smith-Yau, Room 223, 2nd Floor, Horseferry House, Dean Ryle Street, London SW1P 2AW quarterly. A copy of the spreadsheet can be obtained from the same address. Quality of Administration The quality of the administration procedure is the ultimate responsibility of the Programme Manager. Assessment and evaluation are integral to the quality of delivery of the programme and should be managed as such. It is the duty of Programme Managers to ensure that enough staff involved in the programme are appropriately trained to administer the measures. Quality assurance procedures should be carried out every three months to ensure that measures are being administered correctly, that offenders are being encouraged to complete all questions and that the quality of completion achieved is acceptable. This may involve managers occasionally observing testing sessions, but it is not a requirement that sessions should be video taped. Quality assurance should include checking a random selection of completed booklets, discussion of administration problems in team meetings, and supervision with the administrators to resolve quality control problems. Area Contacts As part of the re-launch strategy, the need to establish clear communication between areas and NPD psychologists was identified as a means of improving the quality of implementation. Programme Managers are, therefore, tasked with identifying one individual in their area to be responsible for the psychometric testing of programmes. The contact name and details should be sent to Ruth Taylor by the end of August 2004 and any change in the named person is updated as and when necessary. Programme Managers may consider it appropriate to undertake this role themselves.

PC44/2004 - Re-launch of Accredited Programme Evaluation Measures (Psychometrics)

3

The New Evaluation Measures
The Questionnaires NPD has worked collaboratively with the Prison Service to establish a degree of commonality across programme Evaluation Measures. In deciding which measures should be part of the new battery for GOBPs, a number of factors were taken into consideration. Measures that had proved to be over burdensome and those which have been shown to be unreliable or not measure change were removed. Where more than one measure existed for a specific treatment target, the shortest or least complex measure was chosen. All the new Evaluation Measures are multiple choice, which means they are easier for staff to administer and for offenders to complete. The scoring is entirely automated which saves time. The total number of separate items in the Evaluation Measures has been reduced so that they can be completed in less time than the original measures. The new format of the evaluation booklets presents the measures as three rather than five questionnaires. The questionnaire booklets have been re-designed with a new layout, larger fonts and simplified instructions, which should assist offenders in completing the measures. Details of the Measures are found in Appendix A and the evaluation booklets are attached at Appendix E. Copies of the new booklets will be available from NPD from the end of July - contact Razak Moghal – email: razak.moghal@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk A new scale, the QDI (Quick Discrimination Index) which deals with discriminatory attitudes, has been introduced as part of Questionnaire 2. NPD has a commitment to the provision of intervention for racially motivated offenders. The Accreditation Panel has advised that RMOs should attend GOBPs with some additional structured work, because there is little evidence that they have different criminogenic needs to other offenders. There is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of GOBPs in addressing discriminatory and racist attitudes. The QDI is broader than most racial attitude scales: it was designed to apply across racial and ethnic groups and provide a general measure of receptivity to multiculturalism. The scale consists of 20 items divided into two: attitudes to racial diversity, and affective attitudes towards more personal contact with racial diversity. The QDI provides the opportunity to create an evidence base in this important area. Some of the vocabulary used in the QDI might prove difficult for offenders so the Offending Behaviour Programmes Team is actively seeking ways of simplifying the items, while maintaining the reliability and validity of the measure. Definitions of two of the most difficult terms are given in the Evaluation Manual. Administrators are encouraged to explain these in the session.

Administration and Interpretation
Administrators Anyone trained to administer the original test battery can administer the new measures. Administrators will need to familiarise themselves with the new measures so that they can answer questions about specific items and paraphrase if necessary, although no additional formal training is required. New administrators will continue to be trained on a regional or area basis, but from now trainers should use the new questionnaires. Competencies for administrators are given in Appendix D. Conditions of Administration NPD recognises that areas often have difficulty getting offenders to complete the questionnaires, especially the post programme evaluations. This has not been helped by some of the restrictions placed around the administration of measures. To assist completion, some changes have been agreed to allow more flexibility:• Programme tutors may administer both the pre and post programme psychometrics, provided they have attended the administration training. • Post programme Evaluation Measures may be incorporated into the final session of a programme or completed immediately before or after the final session, if administrators find this helpful. (This avoids the need for attendance at a separate testing session). • Areas are reminded that the pre programme evaluation measures are valid for 3 to 6 months and offenders do not have to retake the assessments before they re-start a programme in this time frame. Interpretation The new Evaluation Manual contains norms (average scores and standard deviations for comparison groups) which will assist in the interpretation of the measures. The Evaluation Measures are intended primarily for use in aggregated form to assess the effectiveness of programme delivery, at course delivery site or area level. Reporting from IAPS will allow

PC44/2004 - Re-launch of Accredited Programme Evaluation Measures (Psychometrics)

4

areas to score and use the measures in this way. The research meetings will provide information for staff to assist in the interpretation of the measures on a group basis. NPD will provide revised interpretation training for staff who have already been trained to interpret the original measures. This half-day training will be provided regionally/nationally on the basis of need following negotiation with RWWMs. For new staff wishing to attend interpretation training the criteria established in PC 52/2002 still apply. NPD will continue to provide interpretation training nationally for new staff meeting these criteria.

Implementing the new measures
Areas will be keen to move quickly to the new measures, given the time saving. NPD is leaving the option of when to make the move to areas. All areas must have commenced using the new measures by January 1st 2005. Areas should inform Ruth Taylor – email: ruth.taylor@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk, and their RWWM when they intend to make the change over. When changing to the new measures there will be a period of overlap. Programme participants who commenced their group with the original measures should complete the original set again at the end of the programme. For ETS and TF this change over phase should not be more than a few months. However, for the Priestly One–to–One programme this could last longer given the average time taken to complete the programme.

Future Work
The changes explained in this circular are only concerned with the GOBP measures. NPD have plans over the coming months to review the Evaluation Measures attached to the other types of accredited programme. Further information will be available later.

PC44/2004 - Re-launch of Accredited Programme Evaluation Measures (Psychometrics)

5

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

General Offending Behaviour / Cognitive Skills Programmes
EVALUATION MANUAL
and Scoring Supplement

NPD OBP 2004

1

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

CONTENTS
Section 1 - Introduction • Introduction and purpose

Section 2 - Issues in assessment • • • • • • Assessment issues Social and ethical implications of testing Administrator qualifications Scoring and interpretation Confidentiality of results Recording and storing of assessments

Section 3 - Uses of assessments • • • • Measuring programme effectiveness Reporting of assessments to staff and other professionals Reporting of assessments to offenders Identifying further treatment targets

Section 4 - Assessment measures • • • • • Treatment targets Assessment measures Brief description of questionnaires Questionnaire One Impulsivity - Eysenck Socialisation - Gough Questionnaire Two Locus of Control – Craig, et al. Quick Discrimination Index Crime PICS PICTS- Current Scale Questionnaire Three Social Problem Solving- Freedman

Appendices Appendix I: References Appendix II: Principles of Administration

Scoring Supplement Questionnaires, Scoring and Norms

NPD OBP 2004

2

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION
Introduction and purpose
The General Offending Behaviour / Cognitive Skills Programmes are intended for offenders who have committed a criminal offence and have been assessed through the programme selection matrix or OASys as showing specific cognitive deficits. This manual outlines the procedures required for the psychometric assessment of offenders assigned to the General Offending Behaviour / Cognitive Skills programmes in the community, which include the following: Reasoning and Rehabilitation Enhanced Thinking skills Think First One to One The manual is divided into sections covering: • • • • • • Assessment issues Guidance about who can administer and score the assessments Use of the assessments The self-report assessment tools to be used along with supporting documentation in the appendices References Guidance about test administration

The purpose of psychometric evaluation is to assess the impact of specific interventions upon groups of individuals who take part in the programme. The 'what works' literature highlights the importance of having evaluation procedures built into programmes to ensure that they are meeting their stated aims and objectives as part of a continuous process of review. Many programmes are very successful, showing positive changes in offenders'

NPD OBP 2004

3

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

behaviour and attitudes. However, poor programmes can lead to higher rates of recidivism among groups of offenders. The ultimate effectiveness of programmes for offenders is determined by whether they change their behaviour, measured via a reduction in the severity, type and number of re-convictions. Reconviction studies take a minimum of around 2-3 years to complete and give little immediate feedback to staff, offenders and evaluators on changes in behaviour. Psychometric assessments are standardised self-report measures that provide an intermediate measure of the impact of programmes, reporting on changes in attitude and behaviour during and immediately after programme delivery. This manual outlines assessment measures that should be used to assess change in the prime treatment targets targeted by the programmes. The main purposes of these assessments are: • • • • to establish quality control of programme delivery to measure effectiveness of the programme in specific target areas to evaluate the programme in accordance with accreditation criteria to drive the development of the programme

This manual will outline how assessment is made. Any questions about the use of the evaluation manual or measures should be directed to the Offending Behaviour Programmes Team.

NPD OBP 2004

4

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

SECTION 2 - ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT
This section deals first with general issues around the use of psychometric assessments and then outlines some issues relating to reporting of results and storing of information. Assessment Issues The quality of the assessment procedure is ultimately the responsibility of the Programme Manager. Assessment and evaluation are integral to the proper delivery of the programme and should be managed as such. It is the duty of Programme Manager to ensure that enough staff involved in the programme are appropriately trained to administer the questionnaires. It is the responsibility of the Programme Manager to ensure that resources are in place for the administration of the psychometrics. The Programme Manager should also ensure that that the questionnaire data is forwarded to NPD for evaluation, along with other information required for monitoring and evaluation purposes. Monitoring and evaluation procedures will be audited by NPD on behalf of the accreditation panel.

Social and ethical implication of testing In both research and practical applications of testing procedures a number of ethical issues are raised for those administering and scoring assessments. These include the qualifications of the testers, and access to and the use of the results in treating offenders. Putting in place stringent controls over the use of such assessments ensures that the offender's rights are maintained.

Administrator qualifications Psychometric assessments should only be administered by staff who have been trained in test administration. To administer the measures to offenders, the administrator must have attended a relevant training course deemed

NPD OBP 2004

5

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

appropriate by the Offending Behaviour Programmes Team.

Relevant

training in line with these recommendations, to enable services to administer the range of tests required for the community programmes, should be provided on a regional or area basis. There is a number of staff in each region who are trained to provide administrator training. Once trained, staff may administer psychometric tests for any of the accredited programmes, except the sex offender programmes. It is the duty of the administrators to familiarise themselves with the test before administration. For all programmes in the community the Programme Manager should ensure that the relevant member of staff administers the tests. Ideally the administrators should not be involved in administering tests to offenders attending a group which they will also tutor. It is recognised that in many cases this will be impractical and, if necessary, tutors who are trained administrators can administer the tests to their own participants. The role of the psychologist will vary according to the availability of this specialist resource but where possible they should be involved in maintaining the quality and consistency of test administration. A Probation Circular (PC 59/2003) has been issued regarding the establishment of a Joint Prison/Probation Psychology Service and it is anticipated that all areas will have access to appropriately supervised psychologists.

Scoring and Interpretation The GOBPs psychometric test scoring is automated by either inputting the test data into IAPS or the Excel spreadsheet that can be obtained from NPD Offending Behaviour Programmes Team. Ethically any professional should only work within the bounds of their own competence. This involves the user demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the psychometric principles underlying test construction,

NPD OBP 2004

6

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

knowledge of the tests, when to use them, scoring and interpretation and meaningful feedback to others (Psychological testing: A Users Guide (British Psychological Society (BPS), 1995). The interpretation of clinical impact results for individual offenders is not recommended but where demanded should only be carried out by qualified personnel, who have been trained to interpret the test results. This includes individuals who have attained BPS Level A testing or have attended other recognised courses, such as those provided by the Offending Behaviour Programmes Team for particular assessment measures. This ensures that Services are in a defensible legal position. It may also be advisable, if this person is a Chartered Psychologist, for them to have legal insurance in cases where offenders may dispute decisions about treatment. Some measures are copyright. Those interpreting the results should also read the references for each measure as given in the references section of this manual. Interpretation of group data is less problematic, but requires a reasonable degree of numeracy and familiarity with tests. Group results should be shared with managers and tutors, as described in Section Three.

Confidentiality of results Scores from assessments should be kept confidential. Only staff qualified to interpret the results should have access to the raw data. Before they complete the assessments, the offenders should be told who will have access to the results.

Recording and storing of assessments It is the responsibility of the Programme Manager to ensure that the data is entered into IAPS or the spreadsheet supplied by NPD. The integrity of the data should be routinely checked to ensure that mistakes have not been made in data entry. Assessment material should be securely stored for a minimum of six months after completion of the order or licence, or longer if the

NPD OBP 2004

7

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

data has not been entered. This will ensure that the questionnaires will be available to be viewed if needed and that evaluators can check questionnaires if necessary.

NPD OBP 2004

8

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

SECTION 3 – THE USE OF ASSESSMENTS
Measuring Programme Effectiveness
It is a requirement of accreditation that programmes are evaluated. This is a safeguard for offenders to ensure that they are participating in a process, which has proven benefits. The programmes have been designed and selected on the basis of their ability to demonstrate change in offenders. Psychometrics are integral to the measurement of effectiveness. The use of psychometric assessment enables the Probation Service to demonstrate effective practice in the reduction of offending. It has been said that reconviction is the ultimate measure of effectiveness but measurement of progress during the programme is important. Reconviction studies take some years to complete and are subject to variation in policing and sentencing practice. More immediate feedback is needed both by management at local level and NPD. There is an increasing concern in the implementation of large-scale programme delivery that the offenders selected are the most appropriate to benefit from the programmes. This is being achieved through standardised interview assessment and risk calculation based on previous history. The selfreport measures of the battery can be used to make an important contribution to the development of this process: • • • • • • • to ensure the quality of programme integrity and delivery to ensure that the programme is reaching the specified target behaviours and attitudes to allow controlled programme development to measure progress at local and national level to examine area and regional differences to examine effectiveness of the programme for types of offender to examine targeting of offenders for programmes

NPD OBP 2004

9

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

At a local level one use of the measures, along with other measures, is to assess the extent to which a group of offenders have changed during the programme. In most cases, the measures consist of a mixture of offenders’ self-reports of attitudes or behaviour and some performance measures. In some situations other measures, such as checklists, will have been used to directly assess offenders’ behaviour. Progress can be measured by a movement towards the attainment of the required skill in a number of ways: a) Programme group change should not be assessed on movement of just one treatment target, but should be assessed by a number of measures covering a range of targets. Change on just one measure should be viewed carefully as they may indicate other factors having an effect. In interpreting the scores caution should be exercised as some measures have better psychometric properties than others. Follow-up data is a useful indicator of continued change. There may be some indication that offenders' scores at follow-up are reverting back to the original level, but if the scores remain in the right direction this may indicate progress. b) A test of significance should be applied to pre and post programme results to assess whether progress has been statistically significant. Preprogramme variation should be accounted for in the analyses. c) It is also considered important that any change found should represent movement towards appropriate non-offending norms. Further advice on the results can be obtained from the Offending Behaviour Programmes Team.

Reporting of assessments For research and evaluation purposes the interpreted results by group without individual identification may be distributed more widely, provided they are

NPD OBP 2004

10

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

presented in a clear, meaningful and useable format to prevent misuse or misunderstanding.

Reporting to staff and other professionals The use of psychometric scores at group level can provide local management with useful insight into the effective operation of programmes. Group results can be compared by site or area over time. The analysis of attrition rates and the selection of offenders can be enriched by the addition of psychometric information. There are some caveats in communicating test results to staff and other professionals: thought should be given to what is meaningful and useful. Results should be accompanied by an interpretation meaningful to the person receiving it. Results should be presented as descriptive performance levels rather than isolated numerical scores. For more detailed interpretation of results the appropriate scoring manuals or references should be referred to. Safeguards should be built into the reporting of assessments and warnings given about how far any test score can be applied to situations beyond the programme scope. Examples of safeguards include explaining if norms are based on offender samples or students and giving descriptions of what is meant, for example by percentages and percentile ranks.

Reporting of assessments to offenders The battery of measures for the GOBPs is not designed for individual feedback. Copyright agreements define their use for research purposes only. In the exceptional case of feedback being required for an individual, e.g. human rights issues, only a psychologist or suitably qualified person trained in interpreting the specific psychometrics should undertake feedback. The reason for this is that detailed knowledge is needed not only on these assessments and the importance and meaning of the results, but also on the principles of psychometric testing. Psychometrics should not be interpreted in

NPD OBP 2004

11

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

isolation; knowledge is needed of the offender’s performance during the programme and an interview needs to be held in which personal factors, which may have influenced the results, can be identified. The resulting scores of the psychometrics would have to be conveyed in a meaningful manner which did not detract from any positive clinical impact of the programme. This is a lengthy process which would require several hours’ time for each feedback session. For more detailed interpretation of results the appropriate scoring manuals or references should be referred to. It should be noted that at this stage of programme implementation the norms on some of these psychometrics for the offender population in the community are in the process of being established. Identifying further treatment targets The psychometric assessments for the General Offending Behaviour Programmes will not normally be used to inform individual treatment targets. Offenders are given feedback at the end of the programme about their performance: this should cover their behaviour and participation on the programme, as well as progress on treatment targets. A detailed report for case managers is drawn up in a standardised form. Post programme reports are used to identify progress towards addressing relevant criminogenic factors. The psychometric assessments will be used at an aggregate level to report on treatment targets for groups of offenders. They will identify unmet needs in offender populations and in this way contribute to future intervention design, development and knowledge about the integration and sequencing of interventions.

NPD OBP 2004

12

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

SECTION 4 - ASSESSMENT MEASURES
The following treatment targets are those recognised for General Offending Behaviour/ Cognitive Skills. Further information about treatment targets is available in the programme and theory manuals. This section assumes that a risk and needs analysis has been carried out via OASys or the selection matrix and concentrates on an assessment of change. Treatment targets Specific inadequacies lead to specific tendencies. For example, lack of self control, tends towards being action orientated, responding without stopping to think and not fully analysing a situation. Lack of critical reasoning causes externalisation of blame, a failure to consider attitudes that contribute to problems and thinking which is shallow, narrow, rigid and irrational. Lack of social perspective taking means offenders are non-empathic, misread social situations, lack awareness of other people’s feelings and fail to distinguish their needs from others. Inadequacies in social problem solving leads to limited ability to recognise the possibility that problems will develop, the inability to generate solutions, and being unable to visualise step by step means to achieving goals. Cognitive deficits are seen as a central mechanism through which environmental and innate factors combine to produce anti-social behaviour. These deficits form the targets of the general offending or cognitive skills programmes. Evidence of Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioural Programmes The authors of Reasoning and Rehabilitation, Ross and Fabiano (1985), distinguish between impersonal and interpersonal cognitions, the former referring to the manipulation of the physical world and the latter being concerned with a knowledge and understanding of people. They believe that it is in the area of interpersonal cognitions that offenders and non-offenders differ. The major premise of their cognitive model is that what and how an offender thinks, how he views the world and how well he understands people, what he values, how he reasons and how he attempts to solve problems in

NPD OBP 2004

13

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

relation to others, plays an important role in his criminal conduct. Fabiano, et al. (1990) state there is a substantial body of research which indicates that due to a number of developmental factors including poverty, lack of opportunity, limited intellectual stimulation, and insufficient and inadequate education, offenders have failed to acquire a number of cognitive skills which are necessary for effective and non-criminal social adaptation. Fabiano, et al. (1990) suggest that these skills are distinct and identifiable and that they include self-control/impulsively; social perspective taking; egocentricity; interpersonal problem-solving and critical reasoning. It is one’s ability in these areas that determines how successfully one copes with life. Based on this approach a programme of cognitive skills training was developed for use with high risk probation clients in Canada (Ross, Fabiano and Ewles, 1988). The programme suggests that the offender be viewed as an active participant in his criminal behaviour, as a decision maker who is poorly equipped cognitively to cope successfully and as a person who should be taught rather than treated. trained by the researchers. It was implemented by probation officers The programme, presented on an individual

basis, focused on modifying impulsive, egocentric, illogical and rigid thinking. Follow-up research showed that offenders receiving the cognitive skills training had lower recidivism rates than comparison groups given an alternative life-skills programme or traditional probation supervision. Further programmes have been derived from this model for prison and probation populations in England and Wales. Evaluation results have been varied. The prison programmes in UK showed early promise (Friendship, et al., 2002), but later reconviction studies have indicated more ambiguous reconviction results. Similarly the Probation Studies Unit, Oxford University showed some favourable reconviction results for early ThinkFirst programme completers in the community. The psychometric evaluations have consistently indicated change in the desired direction (Blud, et al., 2003), but the links between psychometric change and reconviction are yet to be established. Similarly, further information on those offenders who do not complete programmes will be valuable.
NPD OBP 2004

14

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Programme Targets linked to OASys definitions of dynamic risk factors
Impulsivity and Emotional Control Developing cognitive and behavioural strategies to counteract tendency to seek immediate gratification and respond without thinking. Learning to make the most of prior experience when making decisions. Social Skills and Understanding Other People's Views - Perspective Taking Understanding other people’s actions. Reads social situations correctly and distinguishes own feelings from those of others. Social interaction communicating with other people. Recognising Problems Recognises their problems consistently. Recognises their own contribution and that of others or circumstance. Can identify which areas are most closely linked to offending. Problem-Solving - Rigid Thinking Problem solving. Offering alternatives before deciding on a course of action. Recognising obstacles and not becoming overwhelmed. Breaking down long or complex problems into manageable steps. Accepting new ideas. Willing to amend their views. circumstances. Pro-Criminal Attitudes and Beliefs Modify views favouring or excusing criminal behaviour or aligning themselves with criminal subcultures. References for published measures are given in the reference section. Able to infer from general principles and adapt to

NPD OBP 2004

15

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Assessment measures
Treatment Target Impulsivity and Emotional Control Measure Impulsivity (Eysenck) Locus of Control (18 item version) Social Skills and Perspective Taking Recognising Problems Problem Solving and Rigid Thinking Socialisation (Gough) PICTS (current scale + cognitive indolence) Social Problem Solving Quick Discrimination Index (two scales) Pro- Criminal Attitudes and Beliefs Crime-PICS (three scales) All measures are also part of Prison Service Battery Two Three Two One Two Questionnaire One Two

NPD OBP 2004

16

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Description of Measures
QUESTIONNAIRE ONE Eysenck Impulsivity Scale Eysenck 1994 Impulsiveness is a major factor of personality. A strong relationship between impulsivity and criminality has been well established. The scale was formed from earlier extraversion and sensation seeking scales. The scale discriminates between Venturesomeness (sensation and thrill seeking, risk taking and the liveliness aspects of impulsivity) and Impulsiveness (the inability to evaluate risk, narrow impulsivity and susceptibility to boredom). Eysenck and McGurk (1980) found evidence to suggest that levels of narrow or 'tough-minded impulsivity' were higher in a detention centre population compared to normal subjects but there was little difference in Venturesomeness. Others have also made this distinction; Dickman (1990) suggested that two types of impulsivity exist, functional and dysfunctional with dysfunctional being a type of cognitive deficit described as the inability to use a slower more methodical approach to problem solving which becomes most apparent in stressful situations. The Eysenck Impulsivity Scale has also been used in normal populations. Horvath and Zuckerman (1993) found that impulsivity scores were linked to self-reported minor crimes in non-offenders. Robinson, et al. (1998) suggest that theses findings and others further validate the Eysenck scales. The 24 item Impulsiveness scale created by Eysenck and Eysenck (1978) has been adapted for use in the prison and community context. The items have been changed from questions to statements. Two items have not been included - 'do you prefer quiet parties with good conversations to wild uninhibited ones?’ and 'are you rather cautious in unusual situations?'

NPD OBP 2004

17

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Gough Socialisation Scale Lack of pro-social attitudes or the inability to perspective take or understand the consequences of action from another's point of view has been established as one of the characteristics of delinquent/ criminal thinking. Gough theorised that socialisation/asocialisation is a continuum of behaviour; it is defined as the ability or failure to elaborate on an adequate and realistic set of social expectancies and critiques. The Gough Socialisation Scale was derived from California Psychological Inventory items. Gough (1960) found in his research that asocial groups had lower means than social groups. The scale has been used with delinquent populations in Britain (Gudjonsson and Roberts, 1981). QUESTIONNAIRE TWO Locus of Control Craig, Franklin and Andrews 1984 Locus of Control measures the extent to which a person perceives events as being a consequence of his own behaviour and therefore potentially under personal control. A change in this perception by the offender towards a greater acknowledgement of their own responsibility is integral to general offending programme aims. A link has also been made between Locus of Control and Critical Reasoning, one of the major cognitive deficits. Offenders’ most common thinking error is externalising the blame for their own actions (Yochelson and Samenow, 1972; Walters and White, 1989). The Locus of Control is an 18-item scale. The last item is a UK addition which has been shown in a factor analysis based on 40,000 offenders in custody to load higher (be more strongly identified with the factor) than some of the original 17 items. It is therefore included as this version also provides parity with Prison Service results. CRIME-PICS II Developed by Neil Frude, Terry Honess and Mike Maguire 1994 Crime-PICS II is a measure of attitudes, which has been frequently used by Probation Services. The manual states that ‘CRIME-PICS II scores can be aggregated across groups of offenders to evaluate general patterns of
NPD OBP 2004

18

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

change. This is particularly useful to those who wish to evaluate and/or demonstrate the impact of special intervention programmes’. The measure provides a general score and 4 sub-scales, a total of 20 items. The original CRIME-PICS had a fifth scale, which has not been included. • • • • General attitude to offending Anticipation of re-offending Victim hurt denial Evaluation of crime as worthwhile

‘Anticipation of Re-offending’ is one of the few self-report measures of this important aspect of pro-criminal attitudes. The scale 'Evaluation of Crime as Worthwhile' was found to be less reliable in a recent review but all items are included in the General scale. The last subscale of 15 items refers to current self-report problems in addition to the criminogenic needs’ targets. This subscale is not used in the evaluation battery as many of the items are not programme targets and there is a priority concern that the battery should be as concise as possible. Quick Discrimination Index (QDI) Ponterotto, Burkard, Rieger, Grieger, D’Onofrio, Dubuisson, Heenehan, Millstein, Parisi, Rath, and Sax, 1995 This measure is unique in its conceptualisation of discriminatory responses as a general (not a group-specific) tendency, but offers the option of focusing separately on the race and gender components. The QDI is broader than most racial attitude scales: it was designed to apply across racial and ethnic groups and provide a general measure of receptivity to multiculturalism. The scale consists of 30 items divided into three subscales - two are included in the community questionnaire, general (cognitive) attitudes to racial diversity and affective attitudes towards more personal contact with racial diversity. This measure is relevant to the aims of the General Offender / Cognitive Skills Programmes in increasing offenders’ ability to perspective take accurately and in the reduction of rigid thinking.

NPD OBP 2004

19

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

NPD has a commitment to the provision of intervention with racially motivated offenders. A review of the research literature commissioned by NPD through University of Leicester emphasised that there was little or no evidence that racially motivated offenders could be discriminated from other offenders in identifiable criminogenic deficits. Theoretical work in this area has raised questions about the links between prejudicial attitudes and behaviour and has led to a movement away from regarding racism as one-dimensional and towards theorising it as a complex construct of multi-dimensional interactions. The attitudes found to be associated with racism share communality in the programme target areas of rigid thinking and negative attribution to other groups, as well as the location of blame in external events. The QDI is a measure of general receptivity to diversity and multiculturalism. It provides three sub-scale scores (Multiculturalism, Racial Intimacy, and Women's Equality), but for the purposes of GOBP, two scales Multiculturalism and Racial Intimacy have been included. Some of the vocabulary used in the QDI might prove difficult for offenders. The Offending Behaviour Programmes Team is actively seeking ways of simplifying the items while maintaining the reliability and validity of the measure. In the mean time, administrators are asked to support offenders who have difficulties with these items by explaining what the questions mean. terms are given below. Affirmative action – taking positive steps to make sure that people from a certain group are given a fair chance, because it is known that they have often been treated unfairly in similar situations in the past. Multiculturalism - being comfortable with or blending themes and ideas from many different cultures rather than just one, for example, in fashion, music or foods. Definitions of two of the most difficult

NPD OBP 2004

20

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

PICTS- Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles Glenn D. Walters 2002 Evidence that criminals have a particular style of thinking comes from Yochelson and Samenow (1976) interview based investigation. They defined 52 errors of thinking which characterise the criminal mind. Using an inventory based on these findings Garvin and Goldstein (1990) were able to discriminate between groups of delinquent and non-delinquent youths. Walters and White (1989) dismissed the idea of a criminal mind in favour of a 'criminal lifestyle' which encompasses three elemental conditions, family and environmental factors, choices (directing behaviour towards a particular option) and cognitions (modification of thinking to justify/ support behaviour and eliminate guilt), which form a complex multidirectional system. Walters and White focused on the cognitive element of this model and derived eight overlapping thinking patterns utilising Yochelson and Samenow's 52 thinking errors, constructing additional styles and modifying others. This resulted in the 80-item PICTS, which has been incorporated in programme evaluation batteries in both the Prison and Probation Services. Recent work on U.K. offender populations has indicated that not all the eight scales have shown sufficient reliability or value as measures of change; the Cognitive Indolence Scale was found to be the most promising (Blud, et al., 2003). Four studies have examined the predictive ability of the various PICT scales. Glenn Walters (2001) examined the prison disciplinary adjustment of 536 male medium security federal prison inmates in a two year follow-up. He has also recently revised the PICTS sorting the eight scales into two general content scales composed of a reduced number of items believed to reflect current criminal attitudes and beliefs and a scale that references past criminal attitudes and beliefs. Work validating the two scales on U.S. offender populations indicated greater stability for the 12 item Historical scale, but a greater predictive ability for the 13 item Current scale on future disciplinary and release outcomes. This Current scale is incorporated in Questionnaire Two of the General Offending/ Cognitive Skills battery. A further four items from the original 80
NPD OBP 2004

21

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

item PICTS are also included to allow the generation of the Cognitive Indolence Scale. Elevated scores on the Current scale denote identification with a criminal belief system. The Current scale is perhaps the best single predictor of future criminal involvement and recidivism available on the PICTS. The Cognitive Indolence scale is typically elevated by individuals who take shortcuts and the easy way around problems. Such individuals are continually in trouble because their short cuts catch them up sooner or later. Persons scoring high on this scale are frequently characterised as lazy, unmotivated and irresponsible. Cognitive Indolence can be assailed by instructing clients in the use of critical reasoning skills

QUESTIONNAIRE THREE Social Problem Solving Questionnaire (adapted Freedman, et al., 1978) In order to deal competently with problematic social situations, one needs specific problem solving abilities, problem recognition, generation of solutions involving perspective taking and a strategy for the selection of the most appropriate solutions and a proper understanding of likely outcomes The Social Problem Solving Questionnaire was developed from a five-stage model suggested by Freedman, et al. when creating the Adolescent Problems Inventory (API). 1. Situational Analysis: identification of problem situations which might be related to offending. 2. Item Development: obtaining a sample of responses from a wide range of respondents to these problems. 3. Response Enumeration: judges (working independently) rate responses as assertive, aggressive or passive. 4. Response Evaluation: judges working independently were asked to rate the competence of these responses.

NPD OBP 2004

22

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

5. Construction of the inventory and rater's manual, choice of situations and responses to construct the inventory based on the judge’s classification. Ten scenarios were generated by this method and from these scenarios four measures were defined. Assertive problem solving Aggressive problem solving Passive problem solving Generation of solutions In the Social Problem Solving Questionnaire offenders are presented with a problem scenario and a range of possible solutions. They are asked to rank the solutions they would use in order of preference, first through to third. This model was developed for adult use in forensic settings by Clark (1988). A fourth measure is the number of alternative solutions generated by the offenders. In Questionnaire Three only the ranking responses are included, as in practice it has been difficult to make use of the free text responses to generating solutions. There are intrinsic difficulties in the interpretation of what can be included as a solution, which has resulted in the measure being a simple count of all solutions. This gives equality of response between antisocial and pro-social solutions, which seems at variance with the aims of the scale. Therefore, for the purposes of this evaluation the psychometric does not include free text responses.

NPD OBP 2004

23

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

APPENDIX I
REFERENCES General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evidence Blud, L., Travers, R., Nugent, F., Thornton, D., (2003). in practice. Accreditation of

Offending Behaviour Programmes in H.M. Prison Service: 'What Works' Legal and Criminal Psychology 8, 69-81. British Psychological Society. Cann, J., Falshaw, L., Nugent, F., Friendship, C. (2003). Understanding 'What Works': accredited cognitive skills programmes for adult men and young offenders. London. Clark, D. A., (1988). Impulsiveness and Psychomotor abilities in adult offenders in relation to early onset of delinquency. DPS Report Series II, No. 140, December 1985. Home Office, Prison Dept. Clark, D. (2000). Enhanced Thinking Skills Theory Manual prepared for joint Prison Probation Services Accreditation Panel. Eysenck, S. and McGurk, B.J. (1980). Impulsiveness and venturesomeness in a detention center population. Psychological Reports, 47, 1299-1366. Hollin, C., Palmer E. (2000). Reducing Offending by Racially Motivated Offenders. Centre for Applied Psychology, University of Leicester. Freedman, B. J., Rosenthal L., Donahoe, C. P., Schlundt, D. G., and McFall, R. M. (1978). A social behavioural analysis of skill deficits in delinquent and non-delinquent adolescent boys. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, vol 44(6), 1448-62. Friendship, C., Blud, L., Eriksen, M., Travers, R. (2002). An evaluation of cognitive behavioural treatment for prisoners. Home Office Research Findings, No. 161. Home Office, London. Falshaw L., Friendship,C., Travers, R., Nugent, F. (2003). Searching for Home 'What Works'; an evaluation of cognitive skills programmes. Office Research Findings No. 206 Home Office, London. Ong, G., Roberts, C., Al-Attar, Z., Hassant, L. (2003). Think First, an accredited community based cognitive behavioural programme in Home Office Research Findings No. 226. Home Office,

NPD OBP 2004

24

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

England and Wales, Findings from the prospective evaluation in three Probation areas. Probation Studies Unit, Centre for Criminological Research, University of Oxford. Porporino F., Fabiano E., and Robinson D. (1991). Focusing on successful reintegrates: cognitive skills training for offenders. Report No. R-19. Correctional service of Canada, Ottawa. Ross, R. R., and Fabiano E. (1985). Time to think. A cognitive model of delinquency prevention and rehabilitation. Johson City, Tenn: Institute of Social Sciences and Arts. Ross, R., Fabiano, E., and Ewles, D. (1988). Reasoning and Rehabilitation. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 32, 29-35. Sherman, L.W., et al., (eds) (2002). Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. London: Harwood Academic Publishers. Walters, G. D. and White, T. W. (1989). The thinking criminal: a cognitive model of lifestyle criminality. Criminal Justice Research Bulletin, 18, 40618. Yochelson S., and Samenow, S. E. (1972). The criminal personality: A profile for change. Vol I. Aronson: New York. General Offending Behaviour Programmes psychometrics Nugent, F., Geohagan, K., Travers, R. (2002). Cognitive Skills Assessment Test Battery Guide. HM Prison Service. Nooney, K. (2003). General Offending Behaviour Programmes Psychometric Review: Paper ii. Accreditation Panel Robinson, D., Porporino, F., Beal, C., (1998). A review of the literature on Personal and Emotional Need Factors. Correctional Service Of Canada. QUESTIONNAIRE ONE Impulsivity Dickman S.J., (1990). Functional and dysfunctional. Vol. 58, 95-102. Report No R-76 Ottowa October 2003. prepared for Correctional Services

Impulsive personality

and cognitive correlates. Journal of personality and social psychology.

NPD OBP 2004

25

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Eysenck,

S.

B.,

and

Eysenck,

H.J.,

(1978).

Impulsiveness

and

Venturesomeness, their position in a dimensional system of personality description. Psychological Reports Vol.43 (3, Pt 2) Horvath, P., and Zuckerman, M. (1993). Sensation seeking, Risk Appraisal and risky behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 14 (1) 41-52. Socialisation Gough, H. G., and Petersen, D. R. (1952). The identification and measurement of predisposition factors in crime and delinquency. Journal of Consulting Psychology, (16), 207-212 Gough, H. (1960). Theory and measurement of socialisation. Consulting Psychology 24 (1) 23-30 Gudjonnson, G. H. and Roberts, D. R. (1981). The aggressive behaviour of personality disordered patients in relation to personality and perceptual motor performance. Current Psychological Research, vol 1 (2), 101-109. QUESTIONNAIRE TWO Locus of Control Craig, A. R., Franklin, J. A. and Andrews, G. (1984). A Scale to Measure Locus of Control of Behaviour. British Medical Journal of Medical Psychology, 57,173-180. Mirels, H. L. (1970). Dimensions of Internal versus External Control. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34 226-8. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalised expectancies for Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement. Psychological Monographs 80. Yochelson, S. and Samenow S. E. (1976). The Criminal Personality Vol. 1 A profile for change. New York: Jason Aronsen. Crime PICS Frude, N., Honess, T. M. and Maguire, M. (1994). Crime-PICS II: A psychometric tool for measuring attitude change in probation clients. Rex, S. (2002). An Evaluation of Community Service Pathfinder Project. Home Office Study in press. Maguire, M. (2002). The Resettlement of Short Term Prisoners: An Evaluation of Seven Pathfinders. Home Office study Journal of

NPD OBP 2004

26

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

McGuire, M. et al., (2002) Short Term Effects of Probation Programs: An Evaluative Study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 39 (1). Quick Discrimination Index Ponterotto, Burkard, Rieger, Grieger, D’Onofrio, Dubuisson, Heenehan, Millstein, Parisi, Rath, and Sax, (1995). Psychological Measurement, 55, 1016-31. Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., Wrightsman, L. S. Political Attitudes. Academic Press, San Diego. Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles Garvin, L. M. and Goldstein, A. P. (1990). Criminal Thinking Patterns: The relationship between errors in thinking and anti-social behaviour. American Psychology Law Society, Williamsburg, VA. Walters, G. D. (1995a). The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles. Part I: Reliability and preliminary validity. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, Vol. 22(3) 307-225. Walters, G. D. (1995b). The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles. Part II: Identifying simulated response set. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, Vol. 22(4) December, 437-45. Walters, G. D. (1996). The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles. Part III: Predictive Validity. Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 40 (2) 105-112. Walters, G. D. (2001). The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles version 4 manual. Walters, G. D. (2002). Current and Historical content scales for The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles. Society Yochelson, S. and Samenow, S. E. (1976). The Criminal Personality: Vol. 1 A profile for change. New York: Jason Aronson. Legal and Criminological Psychology, Vol. 7 (1). 73-86. British Psychological (1999). Measures of Development and initial validation of the Quick Discrimination Scale (QDI). Educational and

NPD OBP 2004

27

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Implementation Performance Standards Manual for the Delivery of Accredited Individual Programmes. Joint Prison/ Probation Services Accreditation Panel 2002 and HMI Probation. Programme Manager Strategy NPD 2003 Administration Manual NPD British Psychological Society: Psychological Testing Centre, A User's Guide.

NPD OBP 2004

28

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

APPENDIX II
PRINCIPLES of ADMINISTRATION (taken from Administrators Manual NPD) All staff administering the psychometrics should attend the NPD training, as this outlines both some general information about administration of psychometrics as well providing detail on the specific measures being used and giving scripts for use with offenders. This training is one day. Administering assessments In administering the assessments it the responsibility of the administrator to ensure that the test could not have been completed by anyone other than the offender. This precludes the offender taking the material home to complete. For most assessments it is advisable that they are completed in a group testing session, other than for assessments which require individual interviews or for offenders who may be disruptive or have problems such as poor literacy skills. Administrator’s Responsibilities The following tasks are the responsibility of the administrator: • • • to ensure that the purpose of the testing has been clearly communicated to the offender. to ensure that the offender understands the procedures that will be used for testing. to ensure the offender understands how the test information will be used and to whom it will be communicated. To ensure that the above is achieved, the following should be outlined to the offenders either by the case manager or other qualified person administering the assessments: 1. The purpose of the testing Explain the purpose of the testing, the outcomes that will be achieved from the testing and why will this benefit the offender, and the reason why these specific tests are being used.

NPD OBP 2004

29

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

2. The procedure for testing Provide details of who will administer the tests, and when and where will they be administered. 3. How the test information will be used Explain who will score and interpret the tests, and how the test scores will be communicated. Explain the level of confidentiality of the test scores and who will be given access to them. 4. Who to contact if they have any queries/concerns about the testing? Provide the administrator’s name and that of the programme manager.

Testing instructions At the beginning of a testing session, explicit instructions should be given regarding the assessment. These should be written down and should be read so that every offender is given the same instructions. Alternative arrangements may need to be made for offenders with literacy or other problems with reading and writing, for example a disability, which may mean that they need individual sessions. Answering offenders' questions should be limited to clarification of test questions and not examples of the answers. Care should also be taken that the answers are all the offender’s own work and not copied from others in the room. It is advisable to give out the instructions for each assessment separately. Allow offenders enough time to complete the assessment and then move on to the next assessment. Scripted administering instructions are available for staff attending training in administering psychometrics. Administrators should ensure that offenders complete all the items; this can be achieved through vigilance during the assessment session and checking/scanning the booklets before the offenders have left the room. Problems in administration of tests The suite of psychometric tests used in the evaluation of General Offending Behaviour programmes is designed to be undertaken within a one hour

NPD OBP 2004

30

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

session. Completing a test battery of this type can seem an arduous task to offenders and those administering them, and should be approached by the administrators in a positive manner and presented as the start of the process of learning to think in ways that they may have not done so before. Other offenders may struggle with completing the tests because they have short attention spans. If possible an administrator may need to sit with them for short periods of time to encourage them and redirect their attention back to the tests. This may take time but should give positive results. Offenders with literacy problems require the measures to be read out to them and if possible action taken in advance of the session to facilitate this. Finally, there will be offenders who approach the testing session in the same manner as they approach other sessions. They may be disruptive, talking during the session or complaining about the tests or the content of the session. Staff administering the measures will have to decide how to deal with offenders in this category. One alternative may be to administer the measures individually so that the rest of the group can complete them quietly. This is time consuming and may not always be possible. A range of approaches that can be taken with these and other difficult offenders will be discussed at the psychometric training organised by the Offending Behaviour Programmes Team. It is envisaged that some of the QDI items that measure attitudes towards acceptance of ethnic diversity and multiculturalism may be questioned by offenders. These items form a cluster in Questionnaire 2 and are easily identifiable. Administrators may wish to give some explanation of the items at the beginning of the test. Although this is not compulsory a suggested form of words is… ‘The questions in the test are about your beliefs, attitudes and behaviour. They cover a whole range of subjects including, attitudes and behaviours concerned with crime, beliefs about yourself and attitude towards other people, including those from different backgrounds’.

NPD OBP 2004

31

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Frequency of testing Testing should be carried out before the offender starts the programme as part of the pre-programme work and after completion of the programme. It is essential that testing is carried out prior to, and after completion of the programme to assess treatment change and for evaluation purposes. If testing cannot be completed prior to commencement of the programme, for example because the offender was ill on the test date or had some other acceptable reason for not attending and an alternative appointment cannot be made, testing should be arranged as soon as possible after the first programme session. the tests. Post programme testing can be combined with the final programme or immediately precede it if time allows. Post Programme testing should not be delayed more than 1 month after the completion of the programme. Restarts Offenders who restart the programme after a period of around six months from first completing the psychometrics should complete the whole battery again. There will be exceptions to this guideline for which local professional judgement will be needed. The number of sessions the offender attended and the amount of time lapsed since they restarted the programme should also be recorded for evaluation purposes. Non-completors Assessment data on non-completors should be collected in the same manner as completors. If possible, post assessments should be completed at the same time as for other members of the group who completed the programmes. Reasons for non-completion or the number of sessions attended should be recorded so that a comprehensive evaluation can be undertaken. This could be immediately after the session or at a separate appointment. It is acceptable for tutors who are trained to administer

NPD OBP 2004

32

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

General Offending/ Cognitive Skills Programmes

Scoring Supplement

NPD 2004

NPD OBP 2004

33

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Contents 1. Measures, Reliability Validity Norms and Scoring
Questionnaire One - 68 items
Impulsivity- Eysenck Socialisation - Gough

Questionnaire Two - 71 items
Locus of Control Crime- PICS Quick Discrimination Index PICTS

Questionnaire Three - 24 items
Social Problem Solving

2. Questionnaires

NPD OBP 2004

34

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

QUESTIONNAIRE ONE
IMPULSIVITY Eysenck The impulsivity scale consists of 22 items derived from the 24 item impulsiveness scale items created by Eysenck and Eysenck (1978). The scale has a well-established research pedigree and use with offending populations. It has been included in the Prison Service battery for the evaluation of cognitive skills programmes and from this source there is a considerable analytical information on a UK offender population. Reliability Cronbach Alpha = 0.89 2002/3 Test Retest Reliability In a Prison Service Offending Behaviour Programmes Unit study 200 Offenders from a waiting list control group selected for general offending programmes were tested and re-tested after an interval of one month without the intervention of a programme in 2001. The results indicate a high level of stability in this measure. Pearson correlation = 0.86 Norms- from Cognitive Skills Test Battery Guide 2002 for offenders selected and completing general offending/cognitive skills programmes General Norms
Impulsivity Preprogramme Post programme Follow-up 11538 7.59 5.50 *N = 4,571 male offenders completing in 2002/3 pre-post programme results 14602 8.46 5.52 Number 16429 Mean 11.67 Standard dev. 5.52 Effect size* 0.67

N= 4,571 male offenders completing in

NPD OBP 2004

35

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Sub-Group Norms

PRE mean SD n

POST mea n SD n 2716 9859 11943 632 10062 2103 410 241 1983 10322 9937 1871

FOLLOW-UP mea n 6.93 5.3 7.80 5.5 7.62 5.5 7.36 5.5 7.80 5.6 6.81 5.1 6.76 5.1 11.8 5.4 1 9.85 5.6 7.13 5.3 7.99 5.5 5.52 4.7 1505 8631 7996 1678 2321 8015 9779 557 8362 1630 344 176 SD n

Reasoning and Rehabilitation Enhanced Thinking Skills Male Inmates Female Inmates White inmates Black inmates Other/ not known Under 18 18-20 years Adults Non-lifers Lifers

10.94 5.6 11.90 5.5 11.61 5.5 13.05 5.1 11.95 5.5 10.46 5.3 11.33 5.7 15.10 4.0 13.99 4.7 11.14 5.5 12.13 5.4 8.77 5.5

3063 1074 1 1311 7 687 1108 8 2284 432 277 2244 1125 1 1092 0 2044

7.44 5.3 8.72 5.5 8.45 5.5 8.39 5.2 8.65 5.6 7.64 5.2 7.61 5.4 12.7 5.2 1 10.9 5.4 5 7.86 5.4 8.87 5.5 6.03 4.8

Impulsivity Scoring TRUE T Positive items reverse items False F 1, 2, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 23, 24, 25, 36, 37, 38, 39, 48, 49, 58, 59, 60 3, 22, Score 1 if coded 'true' Score 1 if coded 'false'

Higher scores indicate higher levels of impulsivity

NPD OBP 2004

36

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Socialisation Reliability Cronbach Alpha = 0.68 Test Retest Reliability In an Prison Service Offending Behaviour Programmes Unit study 200 Offenders from a waiting list control group selected for general offending programmes were tested and re-tested after an interval of one month without the intervention of a programme in 2001. The results indicate a high level of stability in this measure. Pearson correlation = 0.82 Norms- from Cognitive Skills Test Battery Guide 2002 for offenders selected and completing general offending/cognitive skills programmes General Norms
Socialisation Preprogramme Post programme Follow-up 11538 22.96 5.11 *N = 4,571 male offenders completing in 2002/3 pre-post programme results 14602 22.65 5.18 Number 16429 Mean 20.60 Standard dev. 5.32 0.40 *Effect size

N = 4,571 male offenders completing in 2002/3

NPD OBP 2004

37

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Sub-Group Norms

PRE mean SD n 3119 1083 3 20.62 5.28 20.49 5.18 20.33 5.23 21.93 5.21 20.93 5.61 19.55 4.03 20.04 4.73 20.76 5.39 20.64 5.26 20.69 5.41 1326 0 692 1117 5 2334 443 281 2277 1136 1 1104 7 2055

POST mea n SD n 2745 9951 12059 637 10173 2115 408 246 2016 10405 10045 1872

FOLLOW-UP mea n 23.0 5.0 5 9 22.8 5.0 8 7 22.8 5.0 8 7 23.5 5.1 9 2 22.6 5.0 9 3 23.9 5.1 7 4 23.6 5.2 1 1 21.0 4.4 8 8 21.9 4.6 9 6 23.1 5.1 2 4 23.0 5.0 2 8 22.5 5.0 5 4 1673 8068 8701 1518 175 345 1621 8451 563 9854 8072 2345 SD n

Reasoning and Rehabilitation Enhanced Thinking Skills Male Inmates Female Inmates White inmates Black inmates Other/ not known Under 18 18-20 years Adults Non-lifers Lifers

20.76 5.30 20.57 5.26

22.8 5.1 3 0 22.5 5.1 5 2 22.5 5.1 7 1 23.3 5.2 5 1 22.3 5.0 7 7 23.7 5.1 1 7 23.0 5.2 1 7 21.0 4.4 8 3 21.7 4.7 5 3 22.8 5.1 2 8 22.7 5.1 0 3 22.2 5.0 7 5

Socialisation Scoring TRUE T False F

NPD OBP 2004

38

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Positive items reverse items

10, 11, 16,19, 21, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 41, 42, 44, 51, 53, 56, 61, 62, 66. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 17, 18, 26, 27, 31, 34, 40, 43, 45, 46, 47, 50, 52, 54, 55, 57, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68.

Score 1 if coded 'true' Score 1 if coded 'false'

Higher scores indicate higher levels of socialisation/ role taking skills.

NPD OBP 2004

39

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

QUESTIONNAIRE TWO consists of
Items 1 - 18 Items 19 - 38 Items 39 - 54 Items 55 - 71 Locus of Control Crime PICS Quick discrimination Scale UK adapted PICTS

Locus of Control Craig, Franklin and Andrews 1984 This data is taken from an analysis in 2001 of 40,000 completed Locus of Control questionnaires. They were completed by offenders in custody selected for general offending programmes. Reliability and Validity Factor analysis gave a Factor 1 which accounted for 25% of the variance. This result is similar to that found by Craig, et al., (1984). Scale reliability Cronbach alpha = 0.66 Test Retest Reliability 189 Offenders selected for general offending programmes were tested and retested after an interval of one month without the intervention of a programme. The results indicate sufficient stability over time. Pearson correlation = 0.61 Norms for Internal Locus of Control, measuring an individual's belief about control over personal behaviour. Number Prisoners preprogramme Prisoners post programme Prisoners follow-up Prison staff (tutors) Non-offenders UK 16,938 15,052 11,805 269 200 Mean 43.94 47.57 48.09 51.54 55.60 Standard dev. 7.22 7.04 7.17 4.94 6.20

NPD OBP 2004

40

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Scoring Strongly disagree 0 Positive items reverse items CRIME PICS Items 19 - 38 Disagree 1 Not sure 2 Agree 3 Strongly Agree 4

1, 5, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10,11, 12, 14, 17, 18

Crime PICS items Abbreviated description 17 Extent to which offending is an acceptable way of life 6 Acceptance of likelihood of re-offending 3 4 As title Extent of acceptance that crime is a useful way of obtaining goods or excitement

Scale General Attitudes to Offending Anticipation of reoffending Victim Hurt denial Evaluation of crime as Worthwhile

Factor The factor analysis of Crime PICS for a community offenders’ sample gave a 3 factor solution accounting for 53% of the variance. The components of the factors related strongly to the victim hurt denial scale, and to a lesser extent to the anticipation of re-offending. The dominant factor (23%) was composed of general, anticipation of re-offending and evaluation of crime as worthwhile items. Scale The reliability of Crime PICS was analysed by using item analysis of all the questions. The results support the factor analysis finding of the fragility of a four scale psychometric. The subscale Evaluation Of Crime As Worthwhile is not sufficiently robust as a separate scale; the information it contained is not lost as the general offending scale contains all items. Comparison with previous studies can be sustained.

NPD OBP 2004

41

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

General Attitudes to Offending Anticipation of reoffending Victim Hurt denial Evaluation of crime as Worthwhile

Alpha 0.8753 0.8170 0.7766 0.4650

N 2388 2545 2468 2452

Test/Retest Reliability Matched pairs without an intervening programme. for each individual are compared. Pearson 0.778 0.759 0.601 N 156 161 162

In this condition the

psychometric is administered before and after a time interval and the results

General Attitudes to Offending Anticipation of reoffending Victim Hurt denial

Norms Offenders in the community selected for general offending programmes. CPICS General Attitudes to Offending Anticipation of re-offending Victim Hurt denial Scoring Strongly disagree 0 Number Mean S D min max 2388 17 85 45.6 12.7 2454 2468 15.5 8.2 5.71 3.38 6 2 30 15

Disagree 1

Not sure 2

Agree 3

Strongly Agree 4

Add 1 to all item scores to compare with established norms.

NPD OBP 2004

42

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

CPICS General Attitudes to Offending Anticipation of re-offending Victim Hurt denial

Items 1,3,4, 5,6, 7,10,11 12, 14, 16, 17, 20 3, 4, 14, 2,3,18

Reverse items 8, 9, 15, 19

8, 9, 19

General Attitude to Offending A person with a relatively low score to the UK offender norms believes that offending is not an acceptable way of life. Anticipation of Reoffending. This measure provides a direct assessment of an individual’s acceptance of the likelihood of re-offending. A low score indicates a self-reported decision not to re-offend. Victim Hurt Denial This measures the degree to which the offender rejects or accepts that their crime had adverse effects on their victim. Quick Discrimination Index UK version Items 39 - 54 Quick discrimination Scale UK adapted The QDI is broader than most racial attitude scales. It was designed to apply across racial and ethnic groups and provide a general measure of receptivity to multiculturalism. The scale consists of 30 items divided into three subscales - two are included in Questionnaire Two, general (cognitive) attitudes to racial diversity and affective attitudes towards more personal contact with racial diversity. Validity and Reliability The scale was validated on 220 individuals from the New York City metropolitan area. They were recruited from college classrooms, high schools, businesses and human service organisations. The sample ranged in age from 16-58 years (m=22.5) and was 59% female and 60% Caucasian. Factor Analysis gave a multi-cultural factor 25% of the variance and racial intimacy 9%. In a sample of 333 New Yorkers, the social desirability scale (Crowne and Marlowe, 1960) was unrelated to scores on the three subscales of the QDI (rs = -.16, -.04, -.19). Cronbach's alpha total scale multicultural scale racial intimacy scale = 0.88 = 0.80 = 0.83

NPD OBP 2004

43

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Test-retest 37 college under graduates after a fifteen week test /retest. Pearson Correlation multicultural scale = 0.90 racial intimacy scale = 0.82 Norms Higher scores represent more positive attitudes to diversity, multiculturalism and racial intimacy. mean Multiculturali sm Racial Intimacy Scoring Strongly disagree 0 30.9 24.2 Standard deviation 6.3 5.7 minimum 9 7 maximum 45 35

Disagree 1

Not sure 2

Agree 3

Strongly Agree 4

Add 1 to all item scores to compare with US established norms Questionnaire Two items 49, 52, 53 39, 42, 44, 47, 48, 50 40, 41, 43, 46, 51, 45, 54

Multi-Culturalism Reverse score items Racial Intimacy Reverse score items

PICTS- Psychological Inventory of Thinking Styles Items 55 - 71 PICTS The 80 item, eight scale PICTS has been in use within the battery for General Offending /Cognitive Skills programmes. Questionnaire Two contains one part of the reduced version of PICTS proposed by Walters (2001). The reduced version contains two scales Historical and Current; Questionnaire Two versions contains only the Current scale and four additional original items needed to generate one of the original eight scales- the Cognitive Indolence Scale. The Cognitive Indolence Scale is retained to enable comparison with previous results and studies.

NPD OBP 2004

44

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Validity and Reliability Factor Analysis The generation of the current scale is reported to be from a factor analysis which accounted for 32% of the variance. Item Analysis Current Scale Population = 450 Federal male inmates Cronbachs Alpha = 0.88 Cognitive Indolence population 4571 UK adult male offenders completing programmes in 2002/03 Alpha = 0.79 Cognitive Indolence population 2265 UK adult male offenders in community selected for general offending programmes Alpha = 0.77 Test/ Retest Reliability Current Scale
population Federal male Cognitive Indolence population UK prisoner NORMS Current Scale Population UK probation selected for programmes UK probation completers U S Federal Prison Medium security completers US State prison Close security completers US Probation completers Canadian Prison Medium security Pearson 0.73 number 30 10 week

Pearson 0.86

number 200

1 month

mean 29.8 28.43 23.56 26.94 25.37 23.22

SD 9.27 9.02 8.34 7.17 8.73 7.97

number 2175 659 85 18 26 19

The current scale is perhaps the best single predictor of future criminal involvement and recidivism available on the PICTS. A score of 26 or more on the Current scale is considered elevated in males.

NPD OBP 2004

45

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Cognitive Indolence Norms Persons scoring highly on this scale are frequently characterised as being lazy, unmotivated and irresponsible.
population US prisoner medium security US prisoner maximum security UK prisoner pre-programme UK prisoner post-programme UK prisoner follow-up UK Community offender preprogramme SCORING Strongly Disagree mean 14.35 16.69 18.05 15.40 14.68 19.20 SD 4.96 4.69 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.3 number 14665 13258 10815 2265

Disagree

Not sure

Agree

Strongly Agree

0

1

2

3

4

Current Scale Cognitive Indolence

Questionnaire Two items 55,56,57,58,60,61,62,63,65,64,68 ,69,71 56,57,59,62,63,64,66,70,

NPD OBP 2004

46

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

QUESTIONNAIRE THREE
Social Problem Solving In the Social Problem Solving Inventory subjects are presented with a problem scenario and a range of possible solutions. They are asked to rank the solutions they would use in order of preference, first through to third. The five solutions offered include, one assertive, two passive and two aggressive. Subjects score one point for their first solution, two for their second, three for their third and four for those not chosen. Scores for the placing of assertive, passive and aggressive solutions are then tallied across the eight situations. A good score where a candidate always chooses the assertive response first would be 8, a poor score where the assertive solution is never chosen would be 32. Reliability N= 4,571 male offenders completing in 2002/3 Cronbach Alpha = 0.89
Cronbach's Alpha Assertive Aggressive Passive 0.86 0.87 0.78

Test Retest Reliability In an Prison Service Offending Behaviour Programmes Unit study 200 Offenders from a waiting list control group selected for general offending programmes were tested and re-tested after an interval of one month without the intervention of a programme in 2001. The results indicate an acceptable level of stability in this measure.
Problem Solving Solution style % Assertive % Aggressive % Passive Pearson correlation 0.54 0.64 0.63

NPD OBP 2004

47

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Norms- from Cognitive Skills Test Battery Guide 2002 for offenders selected and completing general offending/cognitive skills programmes General Norms
Socialisation Preprogramme % Assertive % Aggressive % Passive Post programme % Assertive % Aggressive % Passive Follow-up % Assertive % Aggressive % Passive 12599 12599 12599 62.44 5.52 27.27 16.55 8.59 11.72 16041 16041 16041 62.67 5.63 26.68 16.94 8.75 11.72 0.37 0.40 17853 17853 17853 54.48 9.96 26.96 19.28 11.71 11.73 Number Mean Standard dev. *Effect size

*N = 4,571 male offenders completing in 2002/3 pre-post programme results

NPD OBP 2004

48

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Sub-Group Norms % Assertive Solutions

PRE mean SD 19.7 1 54.50 54.54 54.26 54.36 55.08 55.94 47.46 50.25 53.72 58.89 70.78 52.19 19.0 6 19.1 8 19.8 5 19.3 8 18.6 7 17.6 4 18.6 8 18.9 9 19.2 9 18.4 2 5.95 17.3 8 11004 13455 668 11297 2380 446 277 2260 11133 2105 280 308 n 3119

POST mean 63.15 62.63 62.64 64.68 62.65 62.18 62.82 56.64 59.23 62.46 64.28 SD 17.5 0 16.6 4 16.8 2 16.8 5 16.8 3 16.8 1 16.8 6 18.9 3 17.8 4 16.8 1 16.7 2 1937 10235 2041 239 414 2165 10418 640 12357 10222 n 2775

FOLLOW-UP mean 62.54 62.52 62.37 65.37 62.72 61.27 63.69 54.57 58.99 62.05 64.35 SD 17.62 16.12 16.56 14.28 16.33 17.28 15.32 19.35 17.27 16.62 16.15 n 2330 8133 9927 536 8471 1652 340 180 1516 8078 1696

Reasoning and Rehabilitation Enhanced Thinking Skills Male Inmates Female Inmates White inmates Black inmates Other/ not known Under18 18-20 years Non-lifers Lifers Prison Staff tutor applicants Non-offenders- army sample

54.63

NPD OBP 2004

49

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Sub-Group Norms % Aggressive Solutions

PRE mean SD 11.9 2 10.05 9.99 9.45 10.08 9.35 10.23 26.63 26.29 10.74 5.58 2.10 10.31 11.6 4 11.7 0 11.6 5 11.7 7 11.2 0 12.4 0 9.85 10.9 9 11.8 4 12.0 7 2.92 11.0 8 11004 13455 668 11297 2380 446 277 2260 11133 2105 280 308 n 3119

POST mean 5.08 5.83 5.76 3.99 5.65 5.86 5.17 27.33 28.33 6.03 3.75 SD 8.64 8.90 8.92 7.08 8.81 9.19 7.93 10.6 6 10.9 9 9.09 6.91 10235 1937 n 2775 10222 12357 640 10418 2165 414 239 2041

FOLLOW-UP mean 5.12 5.66 5.63 3.74 5.42 6.16 5.37 28.35 29.41 5.97 3.52 SD 8.68 8.61 8.72 6.44 8.38 9.68 9.17 10.65 10.42 8.99 6.42 n 2330 8133 9927 536 8471 1652 340 180 1516 8078 1696

Reasoning and Rehabilitation Enhanced Thinking Skills Male Inmates Female Inmates White inmates Black inmates Other/ not known Under18 18-20 years Non-lifers Lifers Prison Staff tutor applicants Non-offenders- army sample

9.66

NPD OBP 2004

50

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Sub-Group Norms % Passive Solutions

PRE mean SD 11.9 8 27.16 26.96 27.97 27.03 26.88 27.17 26.63 26.39 26.93 27.52 24.69 29.22 11.5 8 11.6 6 11.8 0 11.7 0 11.6 9 10.9 9 9.85 11.0 9 11.5 7 12.3 0 10.2 2 10.0 4 308 11004 13455 668 11297 2380 446 277 2260 11133 2105 280 n 3119

POST mean 26.18 26.91 26.85 24.89 26.67 27.30 25.86 27.33 27.92 26.83 26.30 SD 12.2 6 11.5 3 11.6 8 11.8 5 11.6 5 11.7 8 12.2 2 10.6 6 11.0 6 11.5 9 12.2 4 1937 10235 239 2041 414 2165 10418 640 12357 10222 n 2775

FOLLOW-UP mean 26.31 27.65 27.44 25.82 27.25 27.92 27.27 28.35 29.07 27.51 26.46 SD 12.14 11.57 11.70 11.78 11.67 11.90 11.80 10.65 10.68 11.65 12.33 n 2330 8133 9927 536 8471 1652 340 180 1516 8078 1696

Reasoning and Rehabilitation Enhanced Thinking Skills Male Inmates Female Inmates White inmates Black inmates Other/ not known Under18 18-20 years Non-lifers Lifers Prison Staff tutor applicants Non-offenders- army sample

26.48

NPD OBP 2004

51

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Social Problem Solving Scoring Three scores are generated - Assertive Problem Solving - Aggressive Problem Solving - Passive Problem Solving
All Scenarios First solution choice Second solution choice Third solution choice Fourth solution choice Score 1 2 3 4

Scenario and Solution designation Assertive Aggressive Passive 1, 5 2, 3 A 4 1, 3 4, 5 B 2 1, 4 2, 5 C 3 2, 4 1, 5 D 3 3, 4 2, 5 E 1 3, 5 1, 2 F 4 1, 5 2, 3 G 4 1, 2 3, 4 H 5 For example, for situation A to calculate the assertive solution score selecting solution 4 as first choice will score 1 for Assertiveness, selecting solution 4 as second choice will score 2 for Assertiveness selecting solution 3 as third choice will score 3 for Assertiveness. Not selecting solution 4 will score 4 for Assertiveness To calculate the aggressive solution score Selecting solution 1 or 5, as first choice will score 1 for Aggression Selecting solution 1 or 5, as second choice will score 2 for Aggression selecting solution 1 or 5, as third choice will score 3 for Aggression Not selecting solution 1 or 5, will score 4 for Aggression. Similarly to calculate the passive solution score selecting one of the passive solutions 2 or 3 to situation A will be scored as 1 for first choice, 2 for second, etc. Scores are then tallied across the situations for different types of solutions. This gives three scores - Assertive solutions ranging from 8- 32 - Aggressive Solutions ranging from 16-64 - Passive Solutions ranging from 16-64. A low total indicates that the offender has chosen solution type frequently But, the scores are usually presented as transformed percentages where Assertive percentage solution score = (32- raw score)/ 32 * 100 Aggressive percentage solution Score = (64- raw score)/ 64 * 100 Passive percentage score solution = (64- raw score)/ 64 * 100

NPD OBP 2004

52

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Thus an increase in the number of selected assertive solutions, for example, would be reflected in an increased assertive solution percentage score.

NPD OBP 2004

53

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

General Offending/ Cognitive Skills Programme effectiveness Assessment
Impulsivity Socialisation Locus of Control Crime-PICS PICTS Current scale Cognitive Indolence Assertive solutions Aggressive solutions Passive Solutions General attitudes Anticipation Offending Victim Hurt Denial Multicultural scale Racial Intimacy

Change - Desired direction Down Up Up Down of Down Down Up Up Down Down Up Down Down

Quick Discrimination Index

Social Problem Solving

NPD OBP 2004

54

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

FORM ONE Below are a number of statements that people use to describe themselves. Read each statement. • If the statement is true for you, circle T. • If it is false for you, circle F. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement. Give the answer that seems best to describe you. 1. I often long for excitement. 2. I feel at my best after taking a couple of drinks. 3. I save regularly. 4. I often buy things on impulse. 5. I often feel I’ve made the wrong choice in my occupation. 6. When I was going to school I truanted quite often. 7. I would do almost anything for a dare. 8. I have always had a lot of bad luck. T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F

NPD OBP 2004

55

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

9. It is hard to amount to anything at present. 10. I am stricter about right and wrong than most people. 11. Things are all mixed up in my life. 12. I often do and say things without stopping to think of the consequences. 13. I have often got into a jam because I do things without thinking. 14. I often like to get high (on booze or drugs). 15. I am a very impulsive person. 16. I am afraid of the dark. 17. I hardly ever get thrilled or excited. 18. My parents disapproved of my friends. 19. My home life was always happy. T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F

NPD OBP 2004

56

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

20. I often act on the spur of the moment. 21. My parents let me make my own decisions. 22. I usually think carefully before doing anything. 23. I often enjoy breaking rules I consider to be unreasonable. 24. I mostly speak before thinking things out. 25. I often get involved in things I wish I could get out of. 26. I would rather go without something than ask for a favour. 27. I have had more than my share of things to worry about. 28. When I meet a stranger I often think that s/he is better than I am. 29. Before I do something I try to consider how my friends will react to it. T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F

NPD OBP 2004

57

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

30. I have never been in trouble with the law. 31. In school I was sometimes sent to the Head for misbehaving. 32. I keep out of trouble at all costs. 33. Most of the time I feel happy. 34. I often feel as though I have done something wrong or wicked. 35. It is hard for me to act natural when I am with new people. 36. I get carried away with new and exciting ideas. 37. I get bored very easily doing the same old things. 38. Planning things takes the fun out of life. 39. I need to use a lot of control to stay out of trouble. 40. I have often gone against my parents’ wishes. T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F

NPD OBP 2004

58

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

41. I often think about how I look and what impression I am making upon others. 42. I have never done any heavy drinking. 43. I find it easy to ‘drop’ or ‘break with’ a friend. 44. I get nervous when I have to ask someone for a job. 45. Sometimes I used to feel that I would like to leave home. 46. I never worry about my looks. 47. I have been in trouble one or more times because of my behaviour towards the opposite sex. 48. Almost everything enjoyable is either illegal or immoral. 49. I am often surprised at people’s reaction to what I say. 50. I go out of my way to meet trouble rather than try to escape it. T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F

NPD OBP 2004

59

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

51. My home life was always very pleasant. 52. I seem to do things that I regret more often than other people do. 53. My table manners are not quite as good at home as when I am out in company. 54. It is pretty easy for people to win arguments with me. 55. I know who is responsible for most of my troubles. 56. I get pretty discouraged with the law when a smart lawyer gets a criminal free. 57. I have used alcohol excessively. 58. I get extremely impatient if kept waiting by someone who is late. 59. An evening out is more exciting if planned at the last moment. 60. I get restless staying around the same place for too long. T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F

NPD OBP 2004

60

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

61. Even when I have got into trouble I was usually trying to do the right thing. 62. It is very important to me to have enough friends and social life. 63. I sometimes wanted to run away from home. 64. Life usually hands me a pretty raw deal. 65. People often talk about me behind my back. 66. I would never play cards (poker) with a stranger. 67. I don’t think I’m quite as happy as others seem to be. 68. I used to sometimes steal when I was a youngster. T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F

NPD OBP 2004

61

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Form Two Below are a number of statements about how topics can affect your personal beliefs. There are a large number of people who agree with these statements. There are also a large number of people who disagree with them. There are no right or wrong answers. On the scale mark how you feel about each of the statements. • • • • • strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly agree 4 3 2 1 0 Strongly Disagree 1. I can anticipate difficulties and take action to avoid them. 2. A great deal of what happens to me is just a matter of chance. 3. Everyone knows that luck or chance determines the future. 4. I can control my problems only if I have outside support. 5. When I make plans I am almost certain I can make them work. 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly Agree

NPD OBP 2004

62

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Strongly Disagree 6. My problems will dominate all my life. 7. My mistakes and problems are my responsibility to deal with. 8. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or nothing to do with it. 0 9. My life is controlled by outside actions and events. 10. I believe people are victims of circumstances beyond their control. 11. To continually manage my problems I need professional help. 12. When I am under stress the tightness in my muscles is due to things outside my control. 13. I believe a person really can be master of his own fate. 14. It is impossible to control irregular fast breathing when I am having difficulties. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disagree

Not sure 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Agree

Strongly Agree 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

NPD OBP 2004

63

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Strongly Disagree 15. I understand why my problems vary so much from one occasion to another. 16. I am confident of being able to deal successfully with future problems. 17. In my case maintaining control over my problems is mainly due to luck. 18. I have often been blamed for events beyond my control. 19. In the end, crime does pay. 20. I have never hurt anyone by what I’ve done. 21. I will always get into trouble. 22. Crime has now become a way of life for me. 23. Crime can be a useful way of getting what you want. 24. I believe in living for now, the future will take care of itself. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disagree

Not sure 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Agree

Strongly Agree 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

NPD OBP 2004

64

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Strongly Disagree 25. Most people would commit offences if they knew that they could get away with it. 26. I definitely won’t get into trouble with the police in the next six months (6 months 0 after release if you are in prison). 27. I don’t see myself as a real “criminal”. 28. Committing crime is quite exciting. 29. I find it hard to resist an opportunity to commit a crime. 30. Many so-called crimes are not really wrong. 31. My crimes have never harmed anyone. 32. If things go wrong for me, I might offend again. 33. I am not really a criminal. 34. I always seem to give in to temptation. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disagree

Not sure 2 2

Agree

Strongly Agree 4 4

1 1

3 3

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

NPD OBP 2004

65

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Strongly Disagree 35. When people have no money, they can’t be blamed for stealing. 36. There was no victim of my offence(s). 37. I wouldn’t commit the offence(s) again. 38. Once a criminal, always a criminal. 39. I really think affirmative action programmes for ethnic minorities on college sites constitute reverse discrimination. 40. I feel I could develop an intimate relationship with someone from a different race. 41. My friendship network is very racially mixed. 42. I am against affirmative action programmes for ethnic minorities in business. 43. I would feel OK about my son or daughter dating someone from a different racial group. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disagree

Not sure 2 2 2 2 2

Agree

Strongly Agree 4 4 4 4 4

1 1 1 1 1

3 3 3 3 3

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

NPD OBP 2004

66

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Strongly Disagree 44. In the past few years there has been too much attention directed toward multicultural or minority issues in education. 45. Most of my close friends are from my own racial group. 46. I think that it is (or would be) important for my children to attend schools that are racially mixed. 47. In the past few years there has been too much attention directed toward multicultural or minority issues in business. 48. Overall, I think racial minorities in Britain complain too much about racial discrimination. 49. I think White people’s racism toward minority ethnic groups still constitutes a major 0 problem in Britain. 50. I think the school system, from primary school through to college, should encourage minority and immigrant children to learn and fully adopt traditional British values. 51. If I were to adopt a child, I would be happy to adopt a child of any race.
NPD OBP 2004

Disagree

Not sure 2

Agree

Strongly Agree 4

0

1

3

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

67

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Strongly Disagree 52. I think the school system, from primary school through college, should promote values representative of diverse cultures. 53. I believe that reading the autobiography of Nelson Mandela would be of value. 54. I think it is better if people marry within their own race. 55. Even though I may start out with the best of intentions I have trouble staying “on track”. 56. I sometimes let my thoughts and ideas run wild and ignore the problems and difficulties associated with my plans until it is too late. 57. I find myself taking shortcuts, even when I know these shortcuts will create problems later. 58. I will frequently start an activity, project or job but then never finish it. 59. I tend to let things go when I should act, in the hope that they will work out in time. 60. I have trouble following through on good initial intentions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disagree

Not sure 2

Agree

Strongly Agree 4

1

3

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

NPD OBP 2004

68

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Strongly Disagree 61. I tend to act impulsively under stress. 62. I tend to put off until tomorrow what should have been done today. 63. I have difficulty deciding if my thoughts, ideas and plans are good or poor. 64. If challenged I will sometimes go along by saying “yeah, you’re right,” even when I know the other person is wrong, because it’s easier than arguing with them about it. 65. I tend to get easily side tracked so that I rarely finish what I start. 66. If there is a short-cut or easy way around something I will find it. 67. I have trouble controlling my angry feelings. 68. Even when I set goals I frequently do not obtain them because I am distracted by 0 things going on around me. 69. When frustrated, I stop thinking rationally and say to myself statements such as 0 “sod it” or “to hell with it”. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disagree

Not sure 2 2 2 2

Agree

Strongly Agree 4 4 4 4

1 1 1 1

3 3 3 3

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

1

2

3

4

NPD OBP 2004

69

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Strongly Disagree 70. I rarely considered the consequences of my actions before committing my current 0 offence. 71. tend to push problems to the side rather than deal with them. 0

Disagree

Not sure 2

Agree

Strongly Agree 4

1

3

1

2

3

4

NPD OBP 2004

70

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Form Three
8 realistic life situations that many people might face are given. • • Each one can be seen as a problem to solve. Each one has 5 possible solutions with it.

You are to choose up to 3 of the solutions that you think are the best. Do not put anything against those you would not consider. You should rank them 1st, 2nd and 3rd by putting a 1, 2 or 3 in the ‘rank’ column. There are no right or wrong answers.

NPD OBP 2004

71

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

SITUATION A A friend borrowed some money from you several weeks ago. You asked if he could return it as soon as possible because you might need it. He has made no effort to pay you back nor has he mentioned the money on the last few occasions you have seen him. You get the impression he is avoiding you. Possible Solutions 1. Go round to his place. Threaten him that unless he pays you all he owes immediately he can expect trouble. If he still refuses to pay carry out your threats. 2. Write it off as experience, and break off the friendship. Make a resolution that you won’t lend money to anyone else in future. 3. Keep mentioning it now and again. After all he is a mate and you don’t want to ruin the friendship. He is sure to repay you when he can. 4. Go round to see him. Tell him you need the money and ask when he intends to pay you. If he cannot pay all the money at once take what you can and get him to agree a date for repayment. 5. Go round to see him. Tell him you need the money now. Explain if he doesn’t pay up immediately that is the end of the friendship and you’ll let everyone else know what he’s like. rank

NPD OBP 2004

72

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

SITUATION B At work you have a clash of personalities with your immediate supervisor. He always seems to pick on you. Apart from this difficulty you enjoy your job and would hate to leave it.

Possible Solutions 1. Wait until the next time he says anything, have it out with him there and then in front of everyone. No one should be allowed to get away with the way he’s behaving. 2. Arrange a private discussion with him to try to sort out your differences 3. Think up some way that you can get your own back on him. Perhaps something which will make him look stupid or create problems for him. 4. Look for another job. He’s not going to change so you will be best of out of the situation. 5. Put up with it. It’s just one of those things that happens. Eventually he might start picking on someone else.

rank

NPD OBP 2004

73

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

SITUATION C You are driving a car on a very urgent matter and have broken the speed limit. A police car appears behind you and flags you down.

Possible Solutions 1. Accelerate, you can probably lose then and your journey is too important to stop and waste time. 2. Pull over and do nothing. It would only make matters worse and it’s too late now anyway. 3. Pull over, remain calm and explain about the urgent nature of your journey 4. Pull over and complain about being stopped when you are in such a hurry .Ask why they haven’t got better things to do than pull people up for speeding 5. Pull over, apologise, promise you will never do it again and hope he let you off with a caution.

rank

NPD OBP 2004

74

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

SITUATION D You have been going out with someone for several weeks. You realise they are becoming far more serious about the relationship than you are. You do not want a long-term relationship at present.

Possible Solutions 1. Carry on seeing them, but show less interest. Turn up late, and cancel dates at short notice. Sooner or later they will get the message. 2. Start seeing someone else and make sure they find out about it.

rank

3. Take her/him view.

out somewhere quiet, ask them how they see the

relationship and talk about the current situation, explaining your point of

4. Start an argument with her/him next time you meet. This will then give you a good excuse to finish with them or make them finish with you. 5. Do nothing at present. After all, you might not want a long term commitment but why end it yet? Just avoid any talk about future plans.

NPD OBP 2004

75

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

SITUATION E You are taking a course which is very important to your career prospects. You are certain you will pass most of the practical work involved, but are very concerned about some aspects of the written examination. You are always very nervous and perform badly in that sort of situation. Possible Solutions 1. Explain your difficulties to the course tutor and seek their advice. 2. Take it as it comes. There is no point worrying. If you fail, you fail. 3. Try to smuggle a few notes into the exam room just to give you that extra edge. 4. Persuade a mate who has already done the course to take the exam for you, he’s bound to pass and no one will ever know. 5. Give up the course. If you’re going to fail this part, what’s the point? rank

NPD OBP 2004

76

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

SITUATION F You’re bored. You’ve not been out all week and you want some excitement, but you have got very little spare cash after paying off some of your debts. Possible Solutions 1. Borrow some more money, you can have a good time tonight and always pay it back later. 2. Just stay in and put up with it. Very little can be done without money. rank

3. Obtain some cash in some way, take some money which belongs to someone else, or sell something which isn’t really yours. 4. Consider all the options, think of all the things you can afford and choose the best. 5. Threaten someone until they give you some money.

NPD OBP 2004

77

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

SITUATION G You have arranged to meet your regular partner in a local pub. You have been held up and arrive 15 minutes late. When you get there you find they are sat laughing and talking with a stranger of about your age. They do not see you immediately. Possible Solutions 1. Grab hold of your partner, pull them aside and demand an explanation of their behaviour. 2. Go over, sit down and start talking to your partner. Ignore the other person completely, hopefully they will get the message and go away. 3. Leave immediately before they have a chance to see you. Wait for your partner to return home then ask for an explanation of their behaviour. 4. Go over, introduce yourself and try to find out at close quarters what the situation is really about. 5. Go over and tell the other person to clear off immediately, otherwise there will be trouble. rank

NPD OBP 2004

78

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

SITUATION H Someone sets you up to take the blame for something that you did not do. You know who it was but you cannot prove it. Possible Solutions 1. Beat them up. rank

2. Get your own back by arranging for them to be blamed for something they did not do.

3. Avoid them in the future.

4. Try to forget it, it’s over and done with.

5. Confront them about it. Make sure they are aware how you feel and how it won’t happen again.

NPD OBP 2004

79

ThinkFirst Summary

THINKFIRST OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR PROGRAMME ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMME SHORT TERM EFFECTS FROM STANDARDISED SELF-REPORTS
SUMMARY • • • • • • • Pre and post programme evaluation measures (psychometric tests) for the ThinkFirst programme were analysed. Data in sufficient quantity was available from ten of the 28 areas which use ThinkFirst. The analysis showed a significant change in the desired direction - offenders are reporting improvements in attitude and thinking styles after the programme. There is an improvement in the homogeneity of the results by area. Pre-programme measures indicate regional/area variation in the cognitive deficits reported by offenders who have been selected for the ThinkFirst programme. London area offenders start in a lower range of deficit across all the measures; they show less improvement than offenders from most other areas. The pre-programmes scores for offenders who drop out of the programme show they report significantly higher levels of criminogenic need and deficit before the programme than those who complete. The prognosis for this group, in terms of reconviction, could be considered worse, though OGRS scores might be comparable.

Introduction
Cognitive behavioural techniques have been used in the modification of a range of problematic behaviours and the clinical evidence indicates their broad effectiveness when applied in a consistent and planned way. Offending Behaviour Programmes based on these techniques have been shown to be effective in reducing offending behaviour. The theoretical basis of the programmes is the link between specific cognitive deficits, and risk of re-offending. The cognitive deficits which increase the risk of re-offending include impulsivity, a rigid or restricted approach to problem solving, pro-offending attitudes and lifestyle. These are sometimes termed dynamic risk factors as they are accessible to change unlike the historic risk factors associated with previous behaviour. Cognitive skills programmes are devised to ameliorate cognitive deficits through a series of directed tasks which involve active participation or rehearsal. The programmes combine a multi-modal approach including teaching of specific cognitive skills. They are of sufficient dosage and intensity to change entrenched patterns of behaviour. The cognitive skills programmes employed with offenders in England and Wales have included Reasoning and Rehabilitation, Enhanced Thinking Skills and ThinkFirst. ThinkFirst ThinkFirst is the general offending behaviour programme most widely used with offenders in the community. It was devised by James McGuire on cognitive-behavioural theoretical principles, which attempt to address behaviour and attitudes linked to risk of offending. The dynamic risk factors or deficit areas which ThinkFirst targets are: • Cognitive Social Problem solving skills • Self-management • Social Interaction problems • Pro-social attitudes and values • Social cognitive patterns Offenders are selected through an algorithm, which excludes those who are unlikely or unable to benefit from the programme, those with a low risk of re-offending, and those unable to participate in groups through psychiatric or psychological reasons, such as instability through substance abuse. The resulting pool of selected offenders are considered to be medium to

1

ThinkFirst Summary medium high risk of re-offending and to show evidence in interview of deficits in two of the target areas. There are no offence specific exclusions; consequently the programmes in the community are termed general offending programmes. There are the 29 areas undertaking ThinkFirst; data in acceptable numbers was available for 10 areas. This provided data for 1827 pre and post programme comparisons. This represents the largest study so far of a community programme.

The measures and analysis
The evaluation is restricted to Short Term Intervention Effects. This is a comparison of the assessment measures undertaken before and after the programmes. These measures consist of self-reports by offenders on a number of items or questions related to attitudes and thinking which are linked to offending and targeted within ThinkFirst. The measures are copyright standardised and validated assessment instruments which have been developed and used with offender populations on previous occasions. They have been selected as the most appropriate measures available of the attitudes and thinking targeted by the ThinkFirst programme. The tests are described below in Figure 1. They provide an interim measure of the effectiveness of the programme. Figure 1 There are five self-report measures; the scores are selectively reported according to the findings of the psychometric review. The measures themselves are most closely related to the dynamic risk factors which the programmes address - general pro-criminal attitudes, acceptance of responsibility/control of actions, anticipation of consequences and problemsolving strategies. Barratt Impulsivity - total scale Crime PICS - General offending - Anticipation of Re-Offending - Victim Hurt Denial Locus of control (external) PICTS - Cognitive Indolence SPSI - Positive solving - Rational - Negative - Impulsive - Avoidant Pre-post Programme Results - the pre-test scores for each individual are compared with the post test score of the same individual - the extent of the change if any is measured statistically (matched pairs T.Test). The data may be subject to considerable natural variation which could be mistaken for the intervention effects of the programme - there is a statistical adjustment (Cohen's delta) to take account of this and produce a size effect which can be attributed to programme effects. A size effect above 0.30 is considered to demonstrate a moderate effect, but in a free environment study such as this, size effects of 0.24 are considered acceptable or promising. A longer term goal is to show a change in behaviour, as well as attitude. This would be signified by a reduction in offending, as indicated by reconviction when compared with a group

2

ThinkFirst Summary of offenders who would have been suitable for a general offending programme, but did not receive this intervention. This analysis will be undertaken when reconviction data becomes available. The Data The information was taken from the offending behaviour team data-base. The database contains the entire data set so far supplied through IAPS to NPD, covering a period up to August 2003 (plus data previously assimilated for the psychometric review, Parts 1 and 2). The database has also been expanded to include booklet information sent to NPD since August 2003. The 2003 performance figures (Apr-to Dec) showed that 6104 offenders starting a ThinkFirst programme and 1500 dropping out within that period (an unknown proportion will have actually started before April 2003), but in that period there were an average of 678 starts and 166 drop-outs per month. In the same period in 2002 there were an average of 603 starts and 229 drop-outs per month. The 2003 figures indicate an improvement in retention over the year. Not all the data was available to OBPT, but what was indicates in Figure 2 that there are clear area differences in the proportions of those completing programmes, suggesting operational practice differences. The level of difference in terms of psychometric report between offenders completing and not completing will be examined. Table 1 GOBP ThinkFirst Area London Northumbria Lancs Durham Bedford Avon & Somerset North Yorkshire Thames Valley Devon & Cornwall Humberside Dorset* Gloucester South Yorkshire Cumbria Wiltshire Cheshire West Mercia Kent Cambridgeshire Derbyshire Hertfordshire Manchester Merseyside Norfolk Nottinghamshire Suffolk Sussex Teeside ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Started & completed 708 296 233 128 110 78 71 65 57 44 37 24 22 18 18 16 5 0

Started only 78 259 308 103 179 178 131 155 297 222 88 75 0? 52 138 43 135 1

% complete

91% 53% 43% 55% 38% 30% 35% 29% 16% 16% 30% 24% 100%? 26% 11% 27% 0

Cumulative Total completers 708 1004 1237 1365 1475 1553 1624 1689 1746 1790 1827 1827

no data

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

3

ThinkFirst Summary RESULTS Previous analyses indicate some caution in combining area results as this process has been found to mask important results. Therefore the results are presented by individual area and as a grouped total. Table 2. Provides a summary of the ThinkFirst Short Term Intervention Effects. The main results are significant changes in the desired direction on most measures; this means offenders are reporting changes in attitude and thinking styles after the programme, which indicate more pro-social functioning. Four measures have been selected to compare area results and give a representative analysis of the measurement of change before and after the programme: - Impulsivity Total score - tendency to act without thinking of consequences - General scale of CPICS - pro-criminal attitudes - Locus of control - attributing control of behaviour to external events - Cognitive Indolence scale PICTS - is described in the manual as 'typically elevated by individuals who take shortcuts and the easy way around problems. Such individuals are continually in trouble because their short cuts catch them up sooner or later’. This has also been associated with the prediction of disciplinary offences. - The SPSI (D’Zurilla, Nezu and Maydeu-Olivares, 2000) is not now considered a particularly appropriate measure of programme effectiveness. (The pre-programme scores show an unacceptable level of variation. It is not intended to continue with this measure.) The total change scores illustrate very clearly that in the majority of cases where offenders attend the ThinkFirst programme they are able to improve their stated attitudes and thinking style. Three measures showed a significant effect size. One measure, the Locus of Control psychometric, did not show an acceptable size effect. In this instance, the amount of change after the programme could still be attributed to 'natural ' variation of response, rather than the effects of the programme. This is consistent with previous studies of general offending programmes for offenders in custody, though ThinkFirst is not one of the programmes. The short-term results are generally very positive, showing that offenders who have participated in a programme improve on the level of the cognitive deficits they report, although, larger effect sizes are reported on the prison run programmes. Table 2 ThinkFirst Pre-prog mean Impulsivity CPICS General Scale Locus of Control PICTS Cognitive Indolence 71.81 39.81 31.50 17.37 Post prog mean 69.16 36.90 29.34 15.97 SD (pre) 10.62 9.56 12.62 4.72 Change Sig.* 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Size effect 0.25 0.30 0.17 0.32 n 1415 1544 1571 1726

*Matched pairs T.test - the same individuals compared pre and post programme scores : significant change is measured
than 0.05 probability that the change is due to chance. This is the accepted standard of evidential association.

as a less

The total programme effectiveness is also analysed at area level, as there has been considerable variation between areas in previous analyses. There are a potentially forty-four scores of effect size representing the effectiveness of ThinkFirst across the areas. It has been

4

ThinkFirst Summary said that a moderate effect of 0.24 or above represents an acceptable level of change which can be attributed to programme effect rather than natural variation. This was found for 33 of the scores. There is an improvement in the homogeneity over previous analysis of the results. Table 3. Area& number London 708 Northumbria 296 Lancs 233 Durham 128 Bedford 110 Avon & Somerset - 78 North Yorkshire - 71 Thames Valley - 65 Devon & Cornwall - 57 Humberside 44 Dorset 37 Size effect Impulse CPICS General 0.18 0.25 0.29 0.38 0.36 0.24 0.24 0.32 0.38 ns 0.40 0.15 0.47 0.38 0.46 ns 0.31 0.57 0.45 0.49 0.22 ns Locus of Control 0.08 0.28 0.30 0.31 ns 0.33 0.48 ns 0.37 ns ns PICTS Cognitive Indolence 0.25 0.51 0.28 0.30 0.35 0.27 0.50 0.39 ns 0.44 0.41 Pre-Prog Mean Impul CPICS se General 68.57 74.44 72.44 73.48 71.19 74.97 74.25 71.98 73.12 72.00 74.15 37.30 43.41 39.16 41.66 38.04 40.17 40.74 41.60 41.38 40.00 42.42 Locus of Control 27.03 31.42 30.21 30.87 28.40 29.45 29.14 27.52 31.30 30.22 27.91 PICTS Cognitive Indolence 16.07 19.26 17.33 17.85 17.15 17.87 18.69 17.14 18.23 17.62 18.66

There appear to be some difficulties for a few areas; this may be an artefact of data quality, rather than the effective delivery of the programmes. The pre-programme means for each area show the starting point of the offenders as they see themselves at the beginning of the programme. It is expected that there will be a great similarity as the programme selection criteria have been standardised. The advantage for evaluation is that similarity of offenders on dynamic risk factors, as measured through preprogramme self-report, allows the post programme changes to be considered as differential programme effects. Using the Locus of Control self-report in this way as a key indicator, it can be seen that the offenders selected for ThinkFirst are in general comparable across the areas. It can be seen that the selected offenders start from the same baselines, but the other measures indicate a wider regional/area variation in the cognitive deficits reported by offenders who have been selected for the ThinkFirst programme. London area offenders start in a lower range of deficit across all the measures. This offers an explanation as to why London does not achieve the large effect sizes found in some other areas. If offenders are starting with lower levels of cognitive deficit, there is less opportunity for them to improve. This might suggest that London is targeting for the programme in a slightly different way to other areas. At the time the data were collected, London was also running Reason and Rehabilitation for higher risk offenders and it might be that some of those with greater deficits went there rather than to ThinkFirst. One point which needs to be made here is that at this point we are not certain how much change on the measures is essential to reduce likelihood of reconviction. We will only know this for certain once changes scores are correlated with reconviction data. It is quite likely that it is not the overall movement on any single measure that is most closely linked to reductions in

5

ThinkFirst Summary offending, but reaching a threshold on a number of measures. Thus one cannot say that areas producing the biggest changes are going to be the most effective. It might be that the level of performance on post programme scores is the most predictive. Attrition- Psychometric differences The psychometric or self-report measures were used to compare the level of cognitive deficit reported at the start of the programme by offenders. A comparison can be made between areas to illustrate the operation of selection criteria. They can also be used to explore the selfreported differences in the criminogenic needs of offenders selected for ThinkFirst who completed the programme with the same self-report measures of those who dropped out. It is not possible to know at which part of the programme or the reason for their non-completion. There is evidential value in examining if there were some intrinsic differences reported by the offenders between those completing the programme and those who though selected as equally suitable for ThinkFirst subsequently failed to benefit from the programme. Table 4 Completers Pre-prog mean Impulsivity General Locus Cognitive Indolence 71.96 38.80 28.80 16.95 sd 10.68 9.42 10.93 4.73 n 1642 1304 1536 2330 Noncompleters Pre-prog mean 74.64 41.82 30.77 18.68 sd 10.57 9.57 11.08 4.83 n 1401 1569 1344 1908 Sig Mean diff. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

The self-report measures for offenders who drop out show they had significantly higher levels of criminogenic need and deficit. The prognosis for this group in terms of reconviction could be considered worse than none drop–outs, though OGRS scores for both groups might be comparable. In other words, one might use the measures to identify drop out in advance, but the drop outs are probably the offenders who most need the programme. The problem of attrition and the implications for targeting are complex issues and still, to some extent, a matter of viewpoint. It can be argued that the programmes are successful with a targeted group which becomes self selected into a more programme-responsive group. If this group, which started with evident criminogenic need, shows improvement in short term evaluation of attitude change and long term evaluation in reconviction compared to those without intervention, then this is a successful intervention appropriately targeted. There remains the issue of an effective intervention strategy for those offenders who do not benefit from or refuse programme attendance but have high levels of criminogenic needs linked to risk of re-offending. Kay Nooney Senior Psychologist Offending Behaviour Programmes Team NPD May 2004

-

6

Nomination(s) for 8th September Research Event at NPD, London
1. Name: …………………………………………………………………………. Post: …………………………………………………………………………. Any special requirements (e.g. dietary) …………………………………………………………………………………. e mail address: 2. ………………………………………………………….

Name: …………………………………………………………………………. Post: …………………………………………………………………………. Any special requirement (e.g. dietary) ………………………………………………………………………………… e mail address: …………………………………………………………

Nomination(s) for 1st October Research Event at Leeds
1. Name: …………………………………………………………………………. Post: …………………………………………………………………………. Any special requirements (e.g. dietary) …………………………………………………………………………………. e mail address: 2. ………………………………………………………….

Name: …………………………………………………………………………. Post: …………………………………………………………………………. Any special requirement (e.g. dietary) ………………………………………………………………………………….. e mail address: …………………………………………………………..

Please return this form by 20 August to: Ruth Taylor, Room 223, 2nd Floor, Horseferry House, Dean Ryle Street, London SW1P 2AW E mail: Ruth.taylor@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

ACCREDITED PROGRAMME EVALUATION MEASURES

Nominated contact name for …………………………………………….. area.

Name: Post: Address:

………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………..

E mail:

…………………………………………………………………………..

Please return this form to: Ruth Taylor, Room 223, 2nd Floor, Horseferry House, Dean Ryle Street, London SW1P 2AW E mail: Ruth.taylor@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Appendix D

Competency framework for psychometrics administrators

1. Attitude • • Presents a positive attitude towards the session Avoids making negative or undermining comments about the assessment process

2. Awareness • • • Has a basic familiarity with each of the measures Aware of the importance of the administration upon the integrity of the assessment process Sufficiently informed to be able to deal with questions, without compromising purpose of questionnaire or integrity of assessment

3. Domestics • • • • Aware of importance of setting and deals with housekeeping issues/requirements Attentive to detail – ensures that all the required materials are present and correct, that room layout and conditions are suitable, that offenders’ names are entered, and that booklets are being completed fully and correctly Prevents/minimises external interruptions Ensures that all material is collected in at the end

4. Managing the session • • • • • • Explains the purpose of the session, what will happen, and the rationale for using the questionnaires Allows opportunity for questions and puts participants at ease Gives clear instructions to participants Checks participants’ understanding Sensitive to the needs of individuals within the group throughout the session Able to maintain order within the group setting and keeps appropriate control over the session (able to deal with interruptions or disruptive participants promptly and appropriately)

*

*

*

*

*

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

FORM ONE Below are a number of statements that people use to describe themselves. Read each statement. • If the statement is true for you, circle T. • If it is false for you, circle F. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement. Give the answer that seems best to describe you. 1. I often long for excitement. 2. I feel at my best after taking a couple of drinks. 3. I save regularly. 4. I often buy things on impulse. 5. I often feel I’ve made the wrong choice in my occupation. 6. When I was going to school I truanted quite often. 7. I would do almost anything for a dare. 8. I have always had a lot of bad luck. T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F

NPD OBP 2004

1

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

9. It is hard to amount to anything at present. 10. I am stricter about right and wrong than most people. 11. Things are all mixed up in my life. 12. I often do and say things without stopping to think of the consequences. 13. I have often got into a jam because I do things without thinking. 14. I often like to get high (on booze or drugs). 15. I am a very impulsive person. 16. I am afraid of the dark. 17. I hardly ever get thrilled or excited. 18. My parents disapproved of my friends. 19. My home life was always happy. T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F

NPD OBP 2004

2

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

20. I often act on the spur of the moment. 21. My parents let me make my own decisions. 22. I usually think carefully before doing anything. 23. I often enjoy breaking rules I consider to be unreasonable. 24. I mostly speak before thinking things out. 25. I often get involved in things I wish I could get out of. 26. I would rather go without something than ask for a favour. 27. I have had more than my share of things to worry about. 28. When I meet a stranger I often think that s/he is better than I am. 29. Before I do something I try to consider how my friends will react to it. T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F

NPD OBP 2004

3

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

30. I have never been in trouble with the law. 31. In school I was sometimes sent to the Head for misbehaving. 32. I keep out of trouble at all costs. 33. Most of the time I feel happy. 34. I often feel as though I have done something wrong or wicked. 35. It is hard for me to act natural when I am with new people. 36. I get carried away with new and exciting ideas. 37. I get bored very easily doing the same old things. 38. Planning things takes the fun out of life. 39. I need to use a lot of control to stay out of trouble. 40. I have often gone against my parents’ wishes. T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F

NPD OBP 2004

4

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

41. I often think about how I look and what impression I am making upon others. 42. I have never done any heavy drinking. 43. I find it easy to ‘drop’ or ‘break with’ a friend. 44. I get nervous when I have to ask someone for a job. 45. Sometimes I used to feel that I would like to leave home. 46. I never worry about my looks. 47. I have been in trouble one or more times because of my behaviour towards the opposite sex. 48. Almost everything enjoyable is either illegal or immoral. 49. I am often surprised at people’s reaction to what I say. 50. I go out of my way to meet trouble rather than try to escape it. T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F

NPD OBP 2004

5

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

51. My home life was always very pleasant. 52. I seem to do things that I regret more often than other people do. 53. My table manners are not quite as good at home as when I am out in company. 54. It is pretty easy for people to win arguments with me. 55. I know who is responsible for most of my troubles. 56. I get pretty discouraged with the law when a smart lawyer gets a criminal free. 57. I have used alcohol excessively. 58. I get extremely impatient if kept waiting by someone who is late. 59. An evening out is more exciting if planned at the last moment. 60. I get restless staying around the same place for too long. T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F

NPD OBP 2004

6

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

61. Even when I have got into trouble I was usually trying to do the right thing. 62. It is very important to me to have enough friends and social life. 63. I sometimes wanted to run away from home. 64. Life usually hands me a pretty raw deal. 65. People often talk about me behind my back. 66. I would never play cards (poker) with a stranger. 67. I don’t think I’m quite as happy as others seem to be. 68. I used to sometimes steal when I was a youngster. T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F

NPD OBP 2004

7

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Form Two Below are a number of statements about how topics can affect your personal beliefs. There are a large number of people who agree with these statements. There are also a large number of people who disagree with them. There are no right or wrong answers. On the scale mark how you feel about each of the statements. • • • • • strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly agree 4 3 2 1 0 Strongly Disagree 1. I can anticipate difficulties and take action to avoid them. 2. A great deal of what happens to me is just a matter of chance. 3. Everyone knows that luck or chance determines the future. 4. I can control my problems only if I have outside support. 5. When I make plans I am almost certain I can make them work. 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly Agree

NPD OBP 2004

8

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Strongly Disagree 6. My problems will dominate all my life. 7. My mistakes and problems are my responsibility to deal with. 8. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or nothing to do with it. 0 9. My life is controlled by outside actions and events. 10. I believe people are victims of circumstances beyond their control. 11. To continually manage my problems I need professional help. 12. When I am under stress the tightness in my muscles is due to things outside my control. 13. I believe a person really can be master of his own fate. 14. It is impossible to control irregular fast breathing when I am having difficulties. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disagree

Not sure 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Agree

Strongly Agree 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

NPD OBP 2004

9

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Strongly Disagree 15. I understand why my problems vary so much from one occasion to another. 16. I am confident of being able to deal successfully with future problems. 17. In my case maintaining control over my problems is mainly due to luck. 18. I have often been blamed for events beyond my control. 19. In the end, crime does pay. 20. I have never hurt anyone by what I’ve done. 21. I will always get into trouble. 22. Crime has now become a way of life for me. 23. Crime can be a useful way of getting what you want. 24. I believe in living for now, the future will take care of itself. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disagree

Not sure 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Agree

Strongly Agree 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

NPD OBP 2004

10

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Strongly Disagree 25. Most people would commit offences if they knew that they could get away with it. 26. I definitely won’t get into trouble with the police in the next six months (6 months 0 after release if you are in prison). 27. I don’t see myself as a real “criminal”. 28. Committing crime is quite exciting. 29. I find it hard to resist an opportunity to commit a crime. 30. Many so-called crimes are not really wrong. 31. My crimes have never harmed anyone. 32. If things go wrong for me, I might offend again. 33. I am not really a criminal. 34. I always seem to give in to temptation. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disagree

Not sure 2 2

Agree

Strongly Agree 4 4

1 1

3 3

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

NPD OBP 2004

11

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Strongly Disagree 35. When people have no money, they can’t be blamed for stealing. 36. There was no victim of my offence(s). 37. I wouldn’t commit the offence(s) again. 38. Once a criminal, always a criminal. 39. I really think affirmative action programmes for ethnic minorities on college sites constitute reverse discrimination. 40. I feel I could develop an intimate relationship with someone from a different race. 41. My friendship network is very racially mixed. 42. I am against affirmative action programmes for ethnic minorities in business. 43. I would feel OK about my son or daughter dating someone from a different racial group. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disagree

Not sure 2 2 2 2 2

Agree

Strongly Agree 4 4 4 4 4

1 1 1 1 1

3 3 3 3 3

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

NPD OBP 2004

12

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Strongly Disagree 44. In the past few years there has been too much attention directed toward multicultural or minority issues in education. 45. Most of my close friends are from my own racial group. 46. I think that it is (or would be) important for my children to attend schools that are racially mixed. 47. In the past few years there has been too much attention directed toward multicultural or minority issues in business. 48. Overall, I think racial minorities in Britain complain too much about racial discrimination. 49. I think White people’s racism toward minority ethnic groups still constitutes a major 0 problem in Britain. 50. I think the school system, from primary school through to college, should encourage minority and immigrant children to learn and fully adopt traditional British values. 51. If I were to adopt a child, I would be happy to adopt a child of any race.
NPD OBP 2004

Disagree

Not sure 2

Agree

Strongly Agree 4

0

1

3

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

4

13

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Strongly Disagree 52. I think the school system, from primary school through college, should promote values representative of diverse cultures. 53. I believe that reading the autobiography of Nelson Mandela would be of value. 54. I think it is better if people marry within their own race. 55. Even though I may start out with the best of intentions I have trouble staying “on track”. 56. I sometimes let my thoughts and ideas run wild and ignore the problems and difficulties associated with my plans until it is too late. 57. I find myself taking shortcuts, even when I know these shortcuts will create problems later. 58. I will frequently start an activity, project or job but then never finish it. 59. I tend to let things go when I should act, in the hope that they will work out in time. 60. I have trouble following through on good initial intentions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disagree

Not sure 2

Agree

Strongly Agree 4

1

3

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

NPD OBP 2004

14

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Strongly Disagree 61. I tend to act impulsively under stress. 62. I tend to put off until tomorrow what should have been done today. 63. I have difficulty deciding if my thoughts, ideas and plans are good or poor. 64. If challenged I will sometimes go along by saying “yeah, you’re right,” even when I know the other person is wrong, because it’s easier than arguing with them about it. 65. I tend to get easily side tracked so that I rarely finish what I start. 66. If there is a short-cut or easy way around something I will find it. 67. I have trouble controlling my angry feelings. 68. Even when I set goals I frequently do not obtain them because I am distracted by 0 things going on around me. 69. When frustrated, I stop thinking rationally and say to myself statements such as 0 “sod it” or “to hell with it”. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disagree

Not sure 2 2 2 2

Agree

Strongly Agree 4 4 4 4

1 1 1 1

3 3 3 3

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

1

2

3

4

NPD OBP 2004

15

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Strongly Disagree 70. I rarely considered the consequences of my actions before committing my current 0 offence. 71. tend to push problems to the side rather than deal with them. 0

Disagree

Not sure 2

Agree

Strongly Agree 4

1

3

1

2

3

4

NPD OBP 2004

16

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

Form Three
8 realistic life situations that many people might face are given. • • Each one can be seen as a problem to solve. Each one has 5 possible solutions with it.

You are to choose up to 3 of the solutions that you think are the best. Do not put anything against those you would not consider. You should rank them 1st, 2nd and 3rd by putting a 1, 2 or 3 in the ‘rank’ column. There are no right or wrong answers.

NPD OBP 2004

17

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

SITUATION A A friend borrowed some money from you several weeks ago. You asked if he could return it as soon as possible because you might need it. He has made no effort to pay you back nor has he mentioned the money on the last few occasions you have seen him. You get the impression he is avoiding you. Possible Solutions 1. Go round to his place. Threaten him that unless he pays you all he owes immediately he can expect trouble. If he still refuses to pay carry out your threats. 2. Write it off as experience, and break off the friendship. Make a resolution that you won’t lend money to anyone else in future. 3. Keep mentioning it now and again. After all he is a mate and you don’t want to ruin the friendship. He is sure to repay you when he can. 4. Go round to see him. Tell him you need the money and ask when he intends to pay you. If he cannot pay all the money at once take what you can and get him to agree a date for repayment. 5. Go round to see him. Tell him you need the money now. Explain if he doesn’t pay up immediately that is the end of the friendship and you’ll let everyone else know what he’s like. rank

NPD OBP 2004

18

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

SITUATION B At work you have a clash of personalities with your immediate supervisor. He always seems to pick on you. Apart from this difficulty you enjoy your job and would hate to leave it.

Possible Solutions 1. Wait until the next time he says anything, have it out with him there and then in front of everyone. No one should be allowed to get away with the way he’s behaving. 2. Arrange a private discussion with him to try to sort out your differences 3. Think up some way that you can get your own back on him. Perhaps something which will make him look stupid or create problems for him. 4. Look for another job. He’s not going to change so you will be best of out of the situation. 5. Put up with it. It’s just one of those things that happens. Eventually he might start picking on someone else.

rank

NPD OBP 2004

19

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

SITUATION C You are driving a car on a very urgent matter and have broken the speed limit. A police car appears behind you and flags you down.

Possible Solutions 1. Accelerate, you can probably lose then and your journey is too important to stop and waste time. 2. Pull over and do nothing. It would only make matters worse and it’s too late now anyway. 3. Pull over, remain calm and explain about the urgent nature of your journey 4. Pull over and complain about being stopped when you are in such a hurry .Ask why they haven’t got better things to do than pull people up for speeding 5. Pull over, apologise, promise you will never do it again and hope he let you off with a caution.

rank

NPD OBP 2004

20

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

SITUATION D You have been going out with someone for several weeks. You realise they are becoming far more serious about the relationship than you are. You do not want a long-term relationship at present.

Possible Solutions 1. Carry on seeing them, but show less interest. Turn up late, and cancel dates at short notice. Sooner or later they will get the message. 2. Start seeing someone else and make sure they find out about it.

rank

3. Take her/him view.

out somewhere quiet, ask them how they see the

relationship and talk about the current situation, explaining your point of

4. Start an argument with her/him next time you meet. This will then give you a good excuse to finish with them or make them finish with you. 5. Do nothing at present. After all, you might not want a long term commitment but why end it yet? Just avoid any talk about future plans.

NPD OBP 2004

21

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

SITUATION E You are taking a course which is very important to your career prospects. You are certain you will pass most of the practical work involved, but are very concerned about some aspects of the written examination. You are always very nervous and perform badly in that sort of situation. Possible Solutions 1. Explain your difficulties to the course tutor and seek their advice. 2. Take it as it comes. There is no point worrying. If you fail, you fail. 3. Try to smuggle a few notes into the exam room just to give you that extra edge. 4. Persuade a mate who has already done the course to take the exam for you, he’s bound to pass and no one will ever know. 5. Give up the course. If you’re going to fail this part, what’s the point? rank

NPD OBP 2004

22

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

SITUATION F You’re bored. You’ve not been out all week and you want some excitement, but you have got very little spare cash after paying off some of your debts. Possible Solutions 1. Borrow some more money, you can have a good time tonight and always pay it back later. 2. Just stay in and put up with it. Very little can be done without money. rank

3. Obtain some cash in some way, take some money which belongs to someone else, or sell something which isn’t really yours. 4. Consider all the options, think of all the things you can afford and choose the best. 5. Threaten someone until they give you some money.

NPD OBP 2004

23

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

SITUATION G You have arranged to meet your regular partner in a local pub. You have been held up and arrive 15 minutes late. When you get there you find they are sat laughing and talking with a stranger of about your age. They do not see you immediately. Possible Solutions 1. Grab hold of your partner, pull them aside and demand an explanation of their behaviour. 2. Go over, sit down and start talking to your partner. Ignore the other person completely, hopefully they will get the message and go away. 3. Leave immediately before they have a chance to see you. Wait for your partner to return home then ask for an explanation of their behaviour. 4. Go over, introduce yourself and try to find out at close quarters what the situation is really about. 5. Go over and tell the other person to clear off immediately, otherwise there will be trouble. rank

NPD OBP 2004

24

General Offending Behaviour Programmes Evaluation Manual June 2004

SITUATION H Someone sets you up to take the blame for something that you did not do. You know who it was but you cannot prove it. Possible Solutions 1. Beat them up. rank

2. Get your own back by arranging for them to be blamed for something they did not do.

3. Avoid them in the future.

4. Try to forget it, it’s over and done with.

5. Confront them about it. Make sure they are aware how you feel and how it won’t happen again.

NPD OBP 2004

25