Correctional Rehabilitation and Human Functioning: An Embodied, Embedded, and Enactive Approach

<p>In order for correctional rehabilitation practices to be maximally effective, they should be grounded in well-developed psychological theory about the causes, development, and nature of crime. This thesis argues that these theories of crime should be based in an underlying perspective of human functioning, or how people work at a fundamental level. I argue that this level of theory has been neglected in theories of crime, as demonstrated through an evaluation of the Risk-Need-Responsivity model of rehabilitation, which currently stands as the most popular and widely used rehabilitation framework throughout much of the world. This perspective is understood to implicitly present a view of functioning which is reward-oriented, multifactorial, norm-based, and modular, resulting in limited explanatory value and diminished treatment efficacy. I then suggest an alternative model of functioning as being embodied, embedded, and enactive (3e). 3e places an emphasis on the individual as an embodied whole, in an adaptive relationship with their physical and social environment. 3e prioritises the affective experience and agency of the individual, with a commitment to viewing the person as a functional whole drawing on comprehensive multilevel explanations. I outline how this perspective could be used to inform the explanation of crime, before applying the model to an exemplar to demonstrate the potential treatment utility of a 3e approach to correctional rehabilitation, as opposed to an RNR approach.</p>

Correctional Rehabilitation and Human Functioning: An Embodied, Embedded, and Enactive Approach

<p>In order for correctional rehabilitation practices to be maximally effective, they should be grounded in well-developed psychological theory about the causes, development, and nature of crime. This thesis argues that these theories of crime should be based in an underlying perspective of human functioning, or how people work at a fundamental level. I argue that this level of theory has been neglected in theories of crime, as demonstrated through an evaluation of the Risk-Need-Responsivity model of rehabilitation, which currently stands as the most popular and widely used rehabilitation framework throughout much of the world. This perspective is understood to implicitly present a view of functioning which is reward-oriented, multifactorial, norm-based, and modular, resulting in limited explanatory value and diminished treatment efficacy. I then suggest an alternative model of functioning as being embodied, embedded, and enactive (3e). 3e places an emphasis on the individual as an embodied whole, in an adaptive relationship with their physical and social environment. 3e prioritises the affective experience and agency of the individual, with a commitment to viewing the person as a functional whole drawing on comprehensive multilevel explanations. I outline how this perspective could be used to inform the explanation of crime, before applying the model to an exemplar to demonstrate the potential treatment utility of a 3e approach to correctional rehabilitation, as opposed to an RNR approach.</p>

Parkour/Freerunning as a Pathway to Prosocial Change: A Theoretical Analysis

<p>Parkour/freerunning is a training method for overcoming physical and mental obstacles, and has been proposed as a unique tool to engage youth in healthy leisure activities (e.g., Gilchrist & Wheaton, 2011). Although practitioners have started to utilise parkour/freerunning in programmes for youth at risk of antisocial behaviour, this claim is insufficiently grounded in theory and research to date. In fact, the common misrepresentation of the practice in the media has led to confusion and debate about the nature of parkour/freerunning. In a conceptual and historical analysis, I explore what parkour/freerunning is, and how it can impact on the practitioner. Results from the analysis reveal values, goals and assumptions that parkour/freerunning is built upon, as well as a set of physical, mental, socio-moral and cognitive-behavioural skills developed through the practice. As illustrated by its history, parkour/freerunning has emerged as a highly versatile tool for self-development and change. These insights are used to discuss how parkour/freerunning relates to contemporary frameworks of offender rehabilitation. A comparative analysis demonstrates that parkour/freerunning is largely capable of meeting the standards of rehabilitation practice guided by the Risk-Need-Responsivity model. Moreover, key goals, assumptions and general approach in parkour/freerunning are naturally in line with those in the Good Lives Model of offender rehabilitation. The major overlaps of parkour/freerunning with both frameworks suggest that the practice can increase the individual’s capacity to live a healthy and prosocial life, and reduce the risk of reoffending. Particularly when applied within the GLM, parkour/freerunning offers a pathway to identity formation and transformation. Although this claim is in need of further exploration, I propose that parkour/freerunning can be utilised to enhance the practice of offender rehabilitation as an engaging and easily accessible tool for prosocial change.</p>

Parkour/Freerunning as a Pathway to Prosocial Change: A Theoretical Analysis

<p>Parkour/freerunning is a training method for overcoming physical and mental obstacles, and has been proposed as a unique tool to engage youth in healthy leisure activities (e.g., Gilchrist & Wheaton, 2011). Although practitioners have started to utilise parkour/freerunning in programmes for youth at risk of antisocial behaviour, this claim is insufficiently grounded in theory and research to date. In fact, the common misrepresentation of the practice in the media has led to confusion and debate about the nature of parkour/freerunning. In a conceptual and historical analysis, I explore what parkour/freerunning is, and how it can impact on the practitioner. Results from the analysis reveal values, goals and assumptions that parkour/freerunning is built upon, as well as a set of physical, mental, socio-moral and cognitive-behavioural skills developed through the practice. As illustrated by its history, parkour/freerunning has emerged as a highly versatile tool for self-development and change. These insights are used to discuss how parkour/freerunning relates to contemporary frameworks of offender rehabilitation. A comparative analysis demonstrates that parkour/freerunning is largely capable of meeting the standards of rehabilitation practice guided by the Risk-Need-Responsivity model. Moreover, key goals, assumptions and general approach in parkour/freerunning are naturally in line with those in the Good Lives Model of offender rehabilitation. The major overlaps of parkour/freerunning with both frameworks suggest that the practice can increase the individual’s capacity to live a healthy and prosocial life, and reduce the risk of reoffending. Particularly when applied within the GLM, parkour/freerunning offers a pathway to identity formation and transformation. Although this claim is in need of further exploration, I propose that parkour/freerunning can be utilised to enhance the practice of offender rehabilitation as an engaging and easily accessible tool for prosocial change.</p>

Enactivism and Correctional Science: An Analysis of Forensic Treatment of Agency in a Neoliberal Climate

<p>In correctional practice, as primarily informed and driven by the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) practice framework of Bonta and Andrews (2017), theoretical explanations of agency bear significance in their representation and consequent treatment of ‘criminal’ agents. Due to a state of ‘theoretical illiteracy’ however, this domain remains largely divorced from the insights offered by current affective science (Ward, 2019). The purpose of this paper is to outline key principles offered within an ‘enactive’ paradigm; a contemporary strand of cognitive science that depicts cognition as embodied, embedded and enactive, ultimately submitting a relational cognitive-affective agency, constituted of habits of bodies and minds (Maise & Hanna, 2019; Ward, Silverman & Villalobos, 2017). Enactivism offers various elements that contrast with traditional internal ‘cognitivist models’ of agency, which inform mainstream correctional practice; these include the active, affective and social nature of cognition, which as is illustrated, lends emphasis to the impact of prevalent ideologies, through institutions, upon agents (Maise & Hanna, 2019). In this project I outline current correctional treatment of agency, as it stands in contrast to insights offered by enactive accounts, and as embedded in a broader neoliberal context. Therefore I provide some critical examination of the relationship between psychological theory and neoliberal ideology, specifically focusing on principles of individualism and self-governance it is purported to cultivate. In conclusion I maintain that the RNR provides a thin representation of agency that is driven by an internal and limited perspective of functioning that precludes aspects essential to the personhood of agents including its active, affective and phenomenological nature. As embedded in a neoliberal context, I argue that this significantly limits rehabilitative practice, and reifies an abstraction of mindedness from material and social contexts. A pluralistic approach to rehabilitation is therefore necessary, including the enactive and related perspectives expounded in this piece, in order to provide explanation and therefore practice beyond entrenched normative assumptions of agency and human function.</p>

Enactivism and Correctional Science: An Analysis of Forensic Treatment of Agency in a Neoliberal Climate

<p>In correctional practice, as primarily informed and driven by the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) practice framework of Bonta and Andrews (2017), theoretical explanations of agency bear significance in their representation and consequent treatment of ‘criminal’ agents. Due to a state of ‘theoretical illiteracy’ however, this domain remains largely divorced from the insights offered by current affective science (Ward, 2019). The purpose of this paper is to outline key principles offered within an ‘enactive’ paradigm; a contemporary strand of cognitive science that depicts cognition as embodied, embedded and enactive, ultimately submitting a relational cognitive-affective agency, constituted of habits of bodies and minds (Maise & Hanna, 2019; Ward, Silverman & Villalobos, 2017). Enactivism offers various elements that contrast with traditional internal ‘cognitivist models’ of agency, which inform mainstream correctional practice; these include the active, affective and social nature of cognition, which as is illustrated, lends emphasis to the impact of prevalent ideologies, through institutions, upon agents (Maise & Hanna, 2019). In this project I outline current correctional treatment of agency, as it stands in contrast to insights offered by enactive accounts, and as embedded in a broader neoliberal context. Therefore I provide some critical examination of the relationship between psychological theory and neoliberal ideology, specifically focusing on principles of individualism and self-governance it is purported to cultivate. In conclusion I maintain that the RNR provides a thin representation of agency that is driven by an internal and limited perspective of functioning that precludes aspects essential to the personhood of agents including its active, affective and phenomenological nature. As embedded in a neoliberal context, I argue that this significantly limits rehabilitative practice, and reifies an abstraction of mindedness from material and social contexts. A pluralistic approach to rehabilitation is therefore necessary, including the enactive and related perspectives expounded in this piece, in order to provide explanation and therefore practice beyond entrenched normative assumptions of agency and human function.</p>

Application of the Risk Principle in the Supervision and Treatment of Individuals Who Have Sexually Offended: Does “Oversupervision” Matter?

Individuals who sexually offend are commonly misunderstood as being high risk. According to the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) principles, treatment and supervision levels should be determined by actuarial risk for the best outcomes. To date, no studies have examined these principles with individuals on supervision for a sexual offense. This study applies the RNR principles to a sample of 133 men and women serving probated sentences for a sexual offense and mandated to specialized treatment. Results indicate low-risk individuals convicted of a sexual offense were more likely to be compliant with probation and treatment than moderate-risk individuals. An analysis of risk level and supervision overrides ( N = 75) provides support for the prediction that low-risk individuals supervised at high levels may be more likely to have compliance problems. Results suggest similar outcomes when violating the risk principle for individuals who have sexually offended to the findings among general justice-involved people.

A Perspective on the Integration of eHealth in Treatment of Offenders: Combining Technology and the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model

While there are multiple ways in which eHealth interventions such as online modules, apps and virtual reality can improve forensic psychiatry, uptake in practice is low. To overcome this problem, better integration of eHealth in treatment is necessary. In this perspective paper, we describe how the possibilities of eHealth can be connected to the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model. To account for the risk-principle, stand-alone eHealth interventions might be used to offer more intensive treatment to high-risk offenders. The need-principle can be addressed by connecting novel experience-based interventions such as VR and apps to stable and acute dynamic risk factors. Finally, using and combining personalized interventions is in line with the responsivity-principle. Based on research inside and outside of forensic psychiatry, we conclude that there are many possibilities for eHealth to improve treatment—not just based on RNR, but also on other models. However, there is a pressing need for more development, implementation and evaluation research.

Promoting Rehabilitation Among Youth on Probation: An Examination of Strengths as Specific Responsivity Factors

Despite calls for strength-focused approaches in juvenile justice, there is little research on the role of strengths in probation case management. This is one of the first studies to examine whether strengths function as specific responsivity factors as proposed by the risk–need–responsivity model, through mediating and moderating effects, and findings lend preliminary support to this conceptualization. In a sample of 261 justice-involved youth, the relationship between strengths and recidivism was found to be partially mediated by the service-to-needs match rate, even while controlling for risk—suggesting that strengths have an important indirect effect on recidivism through their impact on youth’s engagement in and completion of services. Strengths, however, did not moderate the relationship between service-to-needs match and reoffending, suggesting that appropriately matched services are essential irrespective of a youth’s strength profile. Research corroborating these findings and examining the feasibility of front-line use of strengths information is warranted.

Matching batterer typologies with their risk of recidivism: Boosting the applicability of typological research

In order to improve the applicability of criminal typologies, Spanish intimate partner violence against women offender subtypes (i.e., high instability/high antisociality, HiHa; low instability/high antisociality, LiHa, high instability/low antisociality, HiLa; low instability/low antisociality, LiLa) were matched with their police recidivism outcomes in a longitudinal study of 9,672 cases extracted from the VioGén System. Individuals with high antisociality features showed the highest recidivism (26.5% HiHa; 22.6% LiHa) and multi-recidivism rates (10.7% HiHa; 8.1% LiHa), and were more likely to be reported for new severe violent episodes against their victims (8.1% LiHa; 7.7% HiHa;) and to violate the protective orders imposed (28.8% HiHa; 28.1% LiHa). Following risk-need-responsivity principles, HiHa and LiHa offenders should be assigned higher intensity treatment programs than LiLa and HiLa individuals. Additionally, the risk posed by all offender subtypes decreased during the follow-up period; however, HiHa offenders presented with the highest risk over time and had a longer police monitoring. Considering this, law enforcement agencies should deploy the most intense police protection measures for victims of HiHa individuals. With regard to prison data, individuals with greater antisociality (HiHa and LiHa) and criminal versatility (generalist batterers) were the most represented in prison; therefore, it would be advisable to include therapeutic ingredients for common offenders in prison-based batterer intervention programs.