“I don’t get a candy bar every time I do my job, why should a client get something for doing what they are already supposed to do?”  Have you ever thought or heard something like this when discussing positive reinforcement with clients in community corrections?  When research shows positive reinforcement is more effective in long term behavior change, why is it that we tend to default to punish only?  

In my experience managing clients, managing staff, being a mother, wife, mentor and coach, I can attest that it can be easier to sigh, moan and complain about the performance of others.  Every time I find myself pulling out my hair, I realize I haven’t been using one of my best tools, positive reinforcement.  And guess what, when I start using it (or increase my use of it), I see improvement and I feel happier. It is all too easy to only notice what is going wrong and completely pay no attention to what is going right.

Let me offer some tips for success when implementing a positive reinforcement program in your agency.

Risk Assessment is Not the Same as Case Formulation

We would like to start with a story. Picture a courthouse in a struggling industrial town in Connecticut. The adult probation department is situated in the basement of this courthouse. We are beginning training with a new cohort of probation officers, teaching them how to incorporate forensic CBT techniques into their work. To start, one of the officers describes a current case and reviews the available assessment information. A quick review of the risk assessment reveals this is a high-risk case; a major area of concern is antisocial companions. We ask the officer to explain how friends and companions specifically influence criminal behavior for this justice-involved client (JIC). We get crickets! We ask, what role did friends play in the most recent offense? Again, an awkward silence permeates the room. While the officer certainly knows that antisocial companions is a risk factor for reoffending, she has not explored the nature of the JIC’s relationships and discussed with the JIC the specific role of companions in his offense history and daily routines. Unfortunately, this is a common training scenario when we begin.

In earlier blogs, we discussed some of the advantages of case planning from a risk-reduction perspective. One of the key challenges in operating from a risk perspective is answering a critical question, Where do mental health symptoms fit when working with justice-involved adolescents and adults?

There is an interesting contradiction in the scientific research of justice-involved clients (JICs) as it relates to mental health. First, JICs tend to have a relatively high prevalence of mental health problems. Second, mental health symptoms among JICs are actually weakly related to criminality (i.e., poor predictors of recidivism). Although there are certainly individual cases in which a JIC’s mental health symptoms directly influenced their offending behavior, these are infrequent occurrences. For the majority of cases, criminal risk domains (discussed in our previous blogs) and not mental health symptoms drive criminal behavior. This concept is particularly important in terms of intervention.