Alec Boros, Mike Randle

Report
MEASURING CRIMINAL
THINKING:
THREE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON
IMPLEMENTATION
Alec Boros, Ph.D.
Research Manager, Oriana House, Inc.
Mike Randle
Program Manager, Oriana House, Inc.
Dzanela Sehic
Program Coordinator, Oriana House, Inc.
Overview
Responsivity: A Review
 Summary of Responsity Assessments we use



A Short Inventory of Problems
The Criminal Thinking Scale
The Assessment
 Some Results from our Agency

Putting the CTS to Use: A facility manager
perspective
 Putting the CTS to Use: Caseworker perspective

Responsivity: A Review
Relationship of Targeted Interventions:
Neglected Areas
Desired Outcome
Fidelity
Responsivity
Treatment Plan
Risk
Dosage
Need
Treatment
Responsivity: General vs. Specific

General Responsivityis associated the use of the
most effective correctional
programming to change the
criminogenic needs of offenders


Specific Responsivity


Use cognitive behavioral interventions that take into account
characteristics of the individual.
Failure to address can hinder treatment efforts
Responsivity: Internal vs. External

Internal Responsivity Factors

Characteristics of the individual offender



Demographic
More difficult to assess and accommodate factors such as personality
and intelligence
They can contribute to the engagement of offenders into
treatment and the development of therapeutic alliance
Responsivity: Internal vs. External

External Responsivity Factors

The interaction between Facility, Staff and Client
characteristics
Facility
Staff
Client
How can we categorize these responsivity areas?














Peers
Motivation
Trauma
Literacy
Attitude/Thinking Style
Family relations
Personality
Intelligence
Communication style
Learning Style
Demographic
Characteristics
Dynamic
Characteristics
Static or Near-Static
Characteristics
Programming

Gender
Race
Age
Ethnicity
Religion
Sample of Responsivity Assessments Used at
OHI
Assessment
Construct
Our Recommendation
Adverse Childhood
Experiences (ACE)
Assesses exposure to childhood emotional,
physical or sexual abuse and household
dysfunction
Under review. Currently developing norms to examine how we
can use information regarding adverse childhood experiences to
guide programming.
TCU Criminal Thinking
Scales (TCU CTS)
Measures 6 criminal thinking styles
Yes. Good assessment for determining client thinking errors prior
to programming. Can be used to guide programming as well as
one-on-one client-staff interactions. Also, an effective measure of
client change when pre and post test scores are compared
TCU Family and Friends
Family relationships, family drug use, peer
socialization, peer criminality
Under review. Currently developing norms to examine how we
can use information regarding social functioning (family/friends) to
guide programming.
Psychological Inventory
of Criminal Thinking
Style (PICTS)
Assesses 8 criminal thinking styles
It depends. An excellent, well-validated assessment of preintervention thinking as well as pre and post test change, but
maybe not be practical due to length and difficulty in scoring
Sample of Assessments Used at OHI
Assessment
Construct
Our Recommendation
PTSD Diagnostic Scale
(PDS)
Assesses severity of Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD) Symptoms stemming
from a traumatic incident
Yes. Good for assessment of PTSD symptoms to determine
whether client requires a referral for PTSD treatment. Also can be
used as a post-test to determine changes in PTSD symptoms.
Please note: self report assessment that is administered and
scored by a clinician.
Short Inventory of
Problems (SIP)
Measure 5 life areas that could be affected
by drug/alcohol use in past 3 months
Yes. Good assessment for determining problems related to drug
and alcohol use. Can be used to provide insight into areas where
client requires assistance. Also, an effective measure of client
change and improvement in client functioning when pre and post
test scores are compared.
University of Rhode
Island Change
Assessment Score
(URICA)
Motivation to change as assessed by
Transtheoretical Model of Change
Yes. Good assessment for determining the client’s initial
motivation to change. Can be adapted to address any problem.
We found it is not effective as a post-test and cannot effectively be
used to determine change in motivation.
Criminal Thinking:
Selecting an Instrument
MAJOR CRIMINOGENIC RISK FACTORS:
BIG FOUR & CENTRAL EIGHT
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
E
i
g
h
t
1.
2.
3.
4.
Anti-social Attitudes/Thinking
Anti-social Peers
Anti-social Personality Pattern
History of Anti-Social Behavior
5. Family / Marital Factors
6. Lack of Achievement in Education/
Employment
7. Lack of Pro-social Leisure Activities
8. Substance Abuse
B
i
g
F
o
u
r
Selecting an Appropriate Responsivity Assessment
Criminal Thinking Scale (TCU CTS)

Origins
 Developed from the work of Glen Walters and the Bureau
of Prisons in 1996


Knight et al., development assessment in 2006
Reliability and validity of the CTS
 3,266 clients from 26 programs
Criminal Thinking Scale (TCU CTS)





requires about 15 minutes to complete
36-item self-report questionnaire
Each item is rated using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = uncertain, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree)
The scales contain an average of 6 items each
Higher scores on a subscale indicate a greater tendency to exhibit
the pattern of thinking being measured by that subscale
TCU CTS Scales
Definition
Personal Irresponsibility
Blaming others/external factors for criminal behavior.
Entitlement
Feeling of privilege
Power Orientation
Need for power/ control over others
Justification
Minimalization of seriousness of antisocial acts
Cold Heartedness
Callousness
Criminal Rationalization
Negative attitude toward law and authority figures
Criminal Thinking Scale (TCU CTS)

Sample CTS questions
Criminal Thinking Scale (TCU CTS)

Scoring Breakdown
Criminal Thinking Scale:
Norming our Population
Norming our Population at Oriana



Objectives
1. To identify the standard cut-off CTS scores used in the
agency
2. To illustrate pre- and post- test results of TCU CTS
assessment which serves as a measure of change in criminal
thinking.
Why develop our own cut-off scores? TCU Norms were developed
with a different population

Greater Socio-economic diversity

Greater diversity in problem severity

Greater diversity in correctional setting

Not gender specific
Populations used
 Male and Female
 Halfway House, CBCF, Probationers (contract)
NORMING OUR POPULATION AT ORIANA
Demographic
Gender (n = 1,707)
Male
Summit
Male
CBCF
Summit
Female
CBCF
RCC
TMRC
338
Female
JNRM
CBCF
170
113
269
CROSSWAEH
486
Total
211
1205
70.6%
120
502
29.4%
Education (n = 1,276)
No GED/
High School
155
43
72
23
229
522
40.9%
High School/ GED
175
64
182
51
241
713
55.9%
Higher than
High School/ GED
8
6
14
1
12
Race (n = 1,243)
Caucasian
150
84
212
32
139
617
49.6%
African American
168
24
46
42
306
586
47.1%
7
2
4
2
25
40
3.2%
Other
41
3.2%
Norming our Population at Oriana
 Facility
CTS
(n = 1,707)
Male
Summit CBCF
TMRC
JNRMCBCF
CROSSWEAH
Female
Summit CBCF
RCC
CROSSWAEH
Criminal Thinking Scales
scores at intake:
Entitlement
Justification
Power
Orientation
Median
Mean
Cold
Heartedness
Median
Mean
Criminal
Rationalization
Median
Mean
Personal
Irresponsibility
Median
Mean
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
15.6
15.7
17.0
14.8
15.0
15.0
16.7
13.3
16.3
16.4
17.6
17.0
15.0
16.7
18.3
16.7
20.2
20.5
20.1
20.8
20.0
20.0
20.0
21.5
23.9
24.4
26.0
21.8
24.0
24.0
26.0
22.0
24.6
25.6
25.5
22.7
25.0
25.0
25.0
21.7
18.0
18.5
19.7
17.1
18.3
18.3
20.0
16.7
14.2
14.0
14.5
11.67
10.0
11.7
17.1
15.4
16.9
16.7
13.3
15.0
19.1
17.9
19.4
18.6
17.1
18.6
21.0
23.1
21.4
20.0
22.0
20.0
21.2
20.8
21.2
20.8
20.0
20.0
16.4
16.5
16.3
15.0
15.0
15.8
 Red numbers represent the highest scores in each criminal subscale.
 Blue numbers represent the lowest scores in each criminal subscale.
Norming our Population at Oriana

Mean and median of intake CTS scores compared by
gender:
Criminal Thinking Scales
Facility
Male
Female
Entitlement
Justification
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
16.0
14.2
15.0
11.7
16.9
16.1
16.7
15.0
If CTS scores differ by gender (p < 0.05)
Independent t-test*
.001
.007
Power
Orientation
Median
Mean
Cold
Heartedness
Median
Mean
Criminal
Rationalization
Median
Mean
Personal
Irresponsibility
Median
Mean
20.3
18.5
24.4
22.3
24.8
21.0
18.6
16.4
20.0
17.1
.001
24.0
22.0
.001
25.0
20.0
.001
18.3
15.0
.001
*Since there are some data which were not normally distributed, non-normal distributed data were transformed to the log number before running independent t-test
analysis.
Norming our Population at Oriana
OHI Female (n ~ 452)
OHI Male (n ~ 1,137)
TCU data (n ~ 3,266)
Entitlement
Justification
Power
Orientation
Cold
Heartedness
Criminal
Rationalization
Personal
Irresponsibility
14.2
16
19.8
16.1
17
21.3
18.5
20.3
25.8
22.3
24.5
23.0
21.0
24.8
32.3
16.4
18.6
21.9
Norming our Population at Oriana

CTS norm-referenced cut-off scores: OHI Female
Max. Score = 50
26.00
High
25.00
21.43
20.00
20.00
18.33
22.00
Moderate-High
20.00
17.14
15.00
15.00
Low-Moderate
11.66
18.00
15.00
12.86
10.00
Entitlement
11.66
10.00
Justification
Low
Power
Orientation *
Cold
Heartedness *
Criminal
Rationalization *
* Top three criminal thinking scales that may have the most influence on client thinking to commit crime
Personal
Irresponsibility
Norming our Population at Oriana

CTS norm-referenced cut-off scores: OHI Male
Max. Score = 50
30.00
High
28.00
24.30
21.66
20.00
20.00
24.00
Moderate-High
25.00
20.00
18.33
16.66
Low-Moderate
15.00
20.00
20.00
15.71
10.00
Entitlement
13.33
11.66
Low
Justification
Power
Orientation *
Cold
Heartedness *
Criminal
Rationalization *
* Top three criminal thinking scales that may have the most influence on client thinking to commit crime
Personal
Irresponsibility
NORMING OUR POPULATION AT ORIANA
ORIANA MALE CTS Scores
Q1 (Low)
Q2 (Low-Moderate)
Q3 (Moderate-High)
Q4 (Moderate-High)
Entitlement
Justification
Power Orientation
=10
=10
10 ≤ X ≤ 12.9
10 < X ≤ 11.7
10 < X ≤ 15.0
12.9 < X ≤ 17.2
11.7 <X ≤ 18.3
15.0 <X ≤ 20.0
17.2 <X ≤ 21.4
X > 18.3
X > 20
X > 21.4
Cold Heartedness
10 ≤ X ≤ 18.0
18.0 < X ≤ 22.0
22.0 <X ≤ 26.0
X > 26.0
Criminal
Rationalization
Personal
Irresponsibility
10 ≤ X ≤ 15.0
15.0 < X ≤ 20.0
20.0 <X ≤ 25.0
X > 25.0
10 ≤ X ≤ 11.7
11.7 < X ≤ 15.0
15.0 <X ≤ 20.0
X > 20.0
ORIANA FEMALE CTS scores
Q1 (Low)
Q2 (Low-Moderate)
Q3 (Moderate-High)
Q4 (Moderate-High)
Entitlement
=10
10 < X ≤ 15.0
15.0 <X ≤ 20.0
X > 20.0
Justification
10 ≤ X ≤ 11.7
11.7 < X ≤ 16.7
16.7 <X ≤ 20.0
X > 20.0
Power Orientation
10 ≤ X ≤ 15.7
15.7 < X ≤ 20.0
20.0 <X ≤ 24.3
X > 24.3
Cold Heartedness
10 ≤ X ≤ 20.0
20.0 < X ≤ 24.0
24.0 <X ≤ 28.0
X > 28.0
Criminal Rationalization
10 ≤ X ≤ 20.0
20.0 < X ≤ 25.0
25.0 <X ≤ 30.0
X > 30.0
Personal Irresponsibility
10 ≤ X ≤ 13.3
13.3 < X ≤ 18.3
18.3 <X ≤ 21.7
X > 21.7
Criminal Thinking Scale:
Pre- and Post-Tests
Pre- and Post- CTS results
Specialized Cognitive Offender Programming & Education - SCOPE
- SCOPE data were analyzed from 2010 to 2012.
Average Pre- and Post- CTS scores compared by gender
Male (n = 539)
Entitlement
Justification
Personal Irresponsibility
Power Orientation
Cold Heartedness
Criminal Rationalization
Intake
Post-test
17.96
17.60
19.03
Female (n = 84)
p-value
Intake
Post-test
.200
15.04
14.63
.421
18.24
.005*
16.61
16.05
.375
21.66
20.31
.000*
19.71
18.63
.095*
22.44
21.64
.004*
20.99
19.91
.173
25.77
24.88
.002*
23.02
22.93
.912
28.88
27.50
.000*
26.33
25.27
.198
Blue numbers represent CTS scores statistically decreased
over the assessment period.
p-value
Pre- and Post- CTS results
Specialized Cognitive Offender Programming & Education - SCOPE
Average Pre- and Post CTS scores compared by year
2010 (n = 243)
2011 (n=222)
2012 (n=160)
Entitlement
Justification
Personal
Irresponsibility
Power
Orientation
Cold
Heartedness
Criminal
Rationalization
Intake
Post-test
17.24
17.46
18.62
p-value
Intake
Post-test
.662
17.70
17.75
18.33
.533
19.09
21.22
20.47
.092
22.07
21.78
24.11
28.78
p-value
Intake
Post-test
.895
17.85
16.03
.001*
18.40
.076*
18.29
16.74
.001*
21.88
20.68
.004*
20.99
18.67
.001*
.545
22.49
21.93
.177
22.15
20.07
.001*
24.15
.925
26.17
25.37
.101
26.30
24.27
.001*
27.92
.077*
28.49
27.64
.069*
28.16
25.40
.001*
Blue numbers represent CTS scores statistically decreased
over the assessment period.
p-value
Pre- and Post- CTS results
Criminal
Thinking
Subscales
Entitlement
Justification
Power Orientation
Cold Heartedness
Criminal
Rationalization
Personal
Irresponsibility
Summit Male CBCF
(n~88)
JNRMCBCF
(n~132)
CROSSWAEH
Male (n~101)
Female (n~71)
RCC
(n~101)
Pre
Post
Sig.
Pre
Post
Sig.
Pre
Post
Sig.+
Pre
Post
Sig.+
Pre
Post
Sig.+
15.1
15.9
19.7
23.7
15.8
16.2
20.3
23.7
.195
.515
.270
.942
16.7
16.8
19.6
25.4
16.9
17.6
20.7
25.1
.666
.106
.015*
.608
13.8
14.4
17.2
23.4
13.2
14.4
16.9
23.1
.043*
.643
.900
.644
14.8
17.5
21.3
21.6
12.3
13.7
17.3
19.8
.001*
.001*
.001*
.003*
14.3
16.2
18.3
20.4
12.0
13.4
16.8
20.4
.000*
.000*
.006*
.758
24.3
23.8
.504
25.3
25.7
397
20.2
18.7
.017*
22.8
17.8
.001*
20.8
17.3
.000*
17.5
18.0
.310
19.4
18.5
.057*.
16.0
14.5
.005*
17.1
13.4
.001*
16.4
13.5
.000*
•
Red numbers represent significant increase in score from pre- to post-test.
•
Blue numbers represent significant decrease in score from pre- to post-test
Putting the CTS to Use:
A facility manager
perspective
JUDGE NANCY CBCF RESULTS
Variable
Race
Variable Categories
n
%
African American
316
62.2
Caucasian
147
28.9
Hispanic
15
3.0
Multiracial
10
2.0
Other
7
1.4
No High School Degree
229
45.1
High School Degree
103
20.3
GED
158
31.1
Associate Degree
12
2.4
Bachelor’s Degree
2
.4
Advanced Degree
1
0.2
Education
JUDGE NANCY CBCF RESULTS
JUDGE NANCY CBCF RESULTS
January 2012-April 2013
(n = 136)
Entitlement
Justification
Power Orientation
Cold Heartedness
Criminal Rationalization
Personal Irresponsibility
May 2013-April 2014
(n = 154)
Pre-test
Posttest
p-value
Pre-test
Post-test
p-value
16.70
16.83
19.63
25.38
25.28
19.41
16.90
17.63
20.73
25.10
25.73
18.46
.666
.106
.015*
.608
397
.057*.
16.80
17.48
20.49
25.77
25.55
19.61
16.06
16.82
21.47
21.48
24.57
18.47
.137
.188
.069*
.107
.421
.022*
How CTS Results are used in
our Facilities
 Shared
with staff
 Developing new programming
 Shared with other programs (Transitional
Services)
Putting the CTS to Use:
Caseworker perspective
USING CTS IN CASEWORKER MEETINGS:
ENTITLEMENT
What is Entitlement?
 Examples
 HOMEWORK IDEAS

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Inventory of Wants vs. Needs
Before making choices list out the consequences to other people.
I’m a victim of others worksheet (give handout and reading)
“I Want it Fast and Easy” Homework
“Robin Hood” Homework
Thinking Report, Thinking Check In, Cognitive Model,
Cognitive Model with Replacement Thoughts or “Thinking and
Feeling” Worksheet on:
 Anytime you find yourself saying “I need this”, “I deserve it”,
“You owe me”, “I want it now”, and “I can’t wait”, “I won’t
wait” do TR
 Optional - evaluate is it a Want vs. Need
 When you feel its okay to break a small rule.
USING CTS IN CASEWORKER MEETINGS:
POWER ORIENTATION
What is Power Orientation?
 Examples
 HOMEWORK IDEAS

1.
3 step from T4C
2.
Thinking Report, Thinking Check In, Cognitive Model,
Cognitive Model with Replacement Thoughts, “Thinking and
Feeling” Worksheet, or L17 Homework from T4C on:

Situation where you become upset when someone tells
you what to do.

When you feel you are not in control

When someone disrespects you

Whenever you feel yourself becoming defensive or
argumentative

When things don’t go your way
USING CTS IN CASEWORKER MEETINGS:
CRIMINAL RATIONALIZATION
What is Criminal Rationalization?
 Examples
 HOMEWORK IDEAS

1.
2.
3.
“What is the bad thing that happened to you?” Homework
“This happens again and again in your life and you don’t like
it” Homework
Thinking Report, Thinking Check In, Cognitive Model,
Cognitive Model with Replacement Thoughts or “Thinking
and Feeling” Worksheet on:
a. Situation where you begin feeling like you are being
treated unfair.
b. Times when you begin to think “the system”, “facility”,
“staff” is unfair.
USING CTS IN CASEWORKER MEETINGS:
JUSTIFICATION
What is Justification?
 Examples
 HOMEWORK IDEAS

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
“I’m a victim of others” worksheet (give handout and reading)
Seemingly Unimportant Decisions “SUDS” Homework
No One Was Hurt – Ripple Effect
“This happens again and again in your life and you don’t like it”
Worksheet
Choices and Consequences (self and others).

Can do past or current situations
Thinking Report, Thinking Check In, Cognitive Model, Cognitive
Model with Replacement Thoughts or “Thinking and Feeling”
Worksheet on:
 When you find yourself wanting to do something you shouldn’t
do because “Everyone else is doing it”.
 When you find yourself blaming other People, Places, or Things
for your actions.
USING CTS IN CASEWORKER MEETINGS:
COLD-HEARTEDNESS'
What is Cold-heartedness?
 Examples
 HOMEWORK IDEAS

1. Choices and Consequences (self only) Both positive and negative
(Decisions worksheet)
2.
List out who is important in your life.

Have client then list out consequences to that person for their actions
USING CTS IN CASEWORKER MEETINGS:
PERSONAL IRRESPONSIBILITY
What is Personal Irresponsibility?
 Examples
 HOMEWORK IDEAS

1.
If a client receives a rule violation have them take a look at how
they played a role in the situation. (Cog Model)
2.
“What is the bad thing that happened to you?” Homework
3.
“This happens again and again in your life and you don’t like it”
Homework
4. Thinking Report, Thinking Check In, Cognitive Model, Cognitive
Model with Replacement Thoughts or “Thinking and Feeling”
Worksheet on:
 “ism” – Favoritism, racism, sexism -- have client do TR.
COGNITIVE MODEL
Bad Happening
What is the bad thing
that happened
to you?
L
What can you do right now?
What actions can you
take to fix it?
How can you think about it in a
better way?
L = Leads to
N = Next
How can you deal with your
feelings about it?
N
What can you do to avoid this type of thing in the future?
TCU Guide Maps/ Learning from Situations
110
THIS HAPPENS AGAIN AND AGAIN IN YOUR LIFE AND YOU DON’T LIKE IT!
1
L = Leads to P = Part I = Influence
P
T
h
i
s
T
h
i
s
What usually starts it off?
6
i
s
2
i
s
I
h
o
w
h
o
w
What do you usually think and feel as it’s starting?
I
7
i
t
u
s
u
a
l
l
y
How could you avoid or change what starts things off?
L
c
o
u
l
d
3
I
L
How could you think or feel differently when it starts?
m
a
k
e
What do you usually do?
8
4
g
o
e
s
i
t
I
L
What could you do differently, once it starts, to make
it less negative?
What usually happens as a result?
5
FIXING A NEGATIVE PATTERN
b
e
t
t
e
r
Thinking Report
Situation:
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Thoughts:
1.____________________________________________________________
2.____________________________________________________________
3.____________________________________________________________
4.____________________________________________________________
5.____________________________________________________________
6.____________________________________________________________
7.____________________________________________________________
8.____________________________________________________________
9.____________________________________________________________
10.___________________________________________________________
Feelings:
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Attitudes and Beliefs:
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Thinking Check-In
Assignment: Between now and the next meeting, please look for situations in which you
experience some degree of stress, tension, a conflict, or maybe you were tempted to break
a rule or did break a rule. Please record your situation below.
Situation:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Thoughts:
1.______________________________________________________________________
2.______________________________________________________________________
3.______________________________________________________________________
4.______________________________________________________________________
5.______________________________________________________________________
6.______________________________________________________________________
7.______________________________________________________________________
8.______________________________________________________________________
Feelings:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Please circle the high risk thought and high risk feeling in the above situation.
Was there a risk in the thought and feeling leading you to do something hurtful? How
would the thought and feeling lead you to do some thing hurtful?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
What new thinking did you use (or could have used) to reduce the risk?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
What, if any, social skills did you use in this situation?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
COGNITIVE MODEL WITH REPLACEMENT THOUGHTS
THINKING AND FEELING WORKSHEET
THOUGHTS
THE SITUATION
FEELINGS
Using the CTS in conjunction with EPICS II
 CTS results distributed to assigned caseworker
 Caseworker begins EPICS II process with client:



Role Clarification
Explaining Behavioral Analysis
Processing Behavioral Analysis
 Once
caseworker processes the Behavioral
Analysis, those targets, as well as the identified
CTS domains, are placed on the RACE
document to track and determine direction
 Based on the collaboration between client and
caseworker, a single target from the RACE
document is chosen
 Appropriate homework will be assigned to
address the chosen target
This form is designed to help you keep track of situations (people, places, things) that increase your risk of getting into trouble. List the
situations that you have recognized as being high-risk for you, how you plan to avoid them, if you can’t avoid them how you will cope
with them, and finally, how your avoidance and coping strategies have worked if you have tried them out. Think of ways you can
improve your avoidance and coping skills each time you try one. Last, be sure to use self-reinforcement when you avoid or cope
successfully!
Evaluate
Recognize
Avoid
Cope
Learn to recognize high-risk situations
Need to feel in control; Feeling
disrespected
Can you avoid? Plan to avoid
If you cannot avoid, plan to manage
Personal Irresponsibility
Feeling entitled to certain things;
Wanting fast and easy way
Specific peer
Lack of self control
How can you better handle the
scenario? What did you do well?
Personal Irresponsibility




Lack of self control



Specific peer


Cognitive model (how they played a role in
the situation)
What is this bad thing homework
This happens again and again
Thinking Report, Thinking Check in,
Cognitive model with or without
replacement thoughts: favoritism, racism,
sexism
Social skill: using self control
Choices and consequences list: times they’ve
not used self control and the consequences
that occurred
Cognitive model or thinking report on
specific situation
Avoidance plan
Coping plan
Targets
identified
via use of
EPICS II
ORAS
results
CTS results
Collaborative
approach to
initiate
change
Client’s
Self-Report
and Insight
USING THE CTS IN COGNITIVE PROGRAMMING
Cognitive Skills Specialists receive CTS results for
clients with a Very High ORAS risk score
 CTS results are utilized during Very High Risk
Group sessions by implementing previously
established curricula for Thinking Errors in order to
process those identified targets
 During Very High Risk Individual sessions, staff
tailors approach based on CTS results
 Consistent communication and collaboration between
caseworker and assigned Cognitive Skills Specialist
on client’s progress
 Currently, above process in place only for VHR
clients

Intake
ORAS results
reviewed
EPICS II
Behavioral
Analysis processed
Pre-Test CTS
administered
CTS results sent to
assigned
caseworker
Targets identified
and tracked on
RACE document
CTS results for
VHR clients sent to
Cognitive
Programming staff
VHR Group
sessions held to
address identified
CTS domains
Single target chosen
and addressed
CTS results
incorporated in
VHR Individual
sessions
Communication
with caseworker
regarding progress
Lessons Learned and
Discussion
Some Lessons Learned
An assessment is useless unless you make plans on
how it will be integrated within your program.
 Be sure to use a tracking method that is right for your
project, staff and resources
 CQI: fidelity of assessment and application of
assessment

Questions?

similar documents