REASONING & REHABILITATION 2

SHORT VERSION FOR ADULTS

Program Overview

Robert R. Ross, Ph.D. Professor

University of Ottawa Canada

Jim Hilborn

Director Cognitive Centre of Estonia

Patrick Liddle Connections Inc

Connecticut U.S.A.

2

The Reasoning & Rehabilitation (R&R2) Short Version for Adults is a cognitive-behavioural program for teaching skills and values that are required for prosocial competence and are antagonistic to antisocial behaviour. It was designed for individuals age 18 and over whose antisocial behaviour has led to their coming under the supervision of social service agencies, mental health organizations, or criminal justice agencies. R&R2 Short Version for Adults is one of a number of specialized new editions of the Reasoning & Rehabilitation Program (R&R) that has been delivered over more than twenty years to more than seventy-five thousand offenders world-wide. The R&R2 edition retains key elements of the original R&R program which has been conducted in many prisons, in hospitals for mentally disordered offenders, and in probation and other community based services for juvenile delinquents and adult offenders and drug addicts. It has also been used in prevention programs for children at risk of delinquency; in programs for the families of delinquents; in programs for the wives, spouses and girlfriends of incarcerated male offenders; and in programs for abused children in foster-care settings. More than eight thousand inmates in penitentiaries and half-way-houses for federal offenders in Canada have participated in the program. R&R is being conducted with adolescent and adult offenders in community agencies and/or institutions in many countries including Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, England, Estonia, Germany, Holland, Ireland, Japan, Latvia, New Zealand, Scotland, Spain, Sweden, and Wales. It has been delivered in county, state and federal prisons in the U.S.A. and in probation services throughout the U.S.A. including Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Washington. R&R has been delivered to illiterate, institutionalized adolescent offenders from the slum barrios of Caracas, Venezuela; to high-risk probationers in impoverished coal-mining towns in Wales; to probationers in Day-Centres and Probation Hostels in many parts of England (including those from high crime rate areas in Liverpool, London and Manchester); to offenders in various prisons and community correctional settings in Scotland; to delinquent gangs in Texas; and to mentally disordered offenders in Colorado, England, Germany, New York and Scotland. Abridged versions of the program have also been successfully applied to adult felony probationers in Texas, to juvenile offenders in institutions in Barcelona and Valencia in Spain and to inmates in prisons in the Canary Islands. A culturally modified program was specifically designed for minority offenders in urban ghettoes in the Bronx, Mid Manhattan and Harlem in New York City. The R&R program has been applied across the spectrum of offender types: "pre-delinquent" children in schools; chronically recidivistic adult offenders; alcohol and drug abusing offenders; violent offenders; property offenders; car thieves; child and spouse-abusers; sex offenders; white collar criminals and mentally disordered offenders.

3

Dissemination Vs. Confirmation It should not be assumed that the popularity of the R&R program is testimony to its adequacy. In the field of criminal justice, popularity often serves as a substitute for efficacy; enthusiasm as a substitute for empiricism. Field testing with controlled evaluation research has long been and continues to be a cornerstone of the R&R program. R&R is the most widely disseminated and most frequently evaluated cognitive behavioral programs for offenders. Its efficacy (when conducted with program integrity) has been demonstrated in numerous independent international evaluations. Confirmation of the efficacy of R&R has been presented in thorough reviews of those evaluations (see Antonowicz, 2004) and in meta-analyses (Tong & Farrington, 2006, 2007). A recent meta-analysis of studies of the efficacy of R&R conducted over the past twenty years concluded as follows:

Sixteen evaluations (involving 26 separate comparisons) were located in

which experimental and control groups were compared. A meta-analysis

showed that, overall, there was a significant 14% decrease in recidivism for

programme participants compared with controls. This programme was

effective in Canada, the USA, and the UK. It was effective in community and

institutional settings, and for low risk and high-risk offenders. Smaller and

larger evaluation studies, and older and newer studies, concluded that the

programme was effective1

R&R was one of the first programs to be approved by program Accreditation Panels in England and Wales; Scotland; and Canada. The cost-benefit of R&R was analyzed by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2001) which concluded:

the cost per participant is low, about $300 … effect sizes, coupled with the low cost of the program, produce attractive … economic bottom lines of about $2,400 in net taxpayer-only benefits per participant2.

A description of the R&R program and evaluations of the program in Canada, U.S.A., Spain, England, Scotland, Germany and Wales are presented in Thinking Straight: The Reasoning and Rehabilitation Program for Delinquency Prevention & Offender Rehabilitation (Ross & Ross, 1995) and Rehabilitating Rehabilitation (Ross & Hilborn, 2008).

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

1 Tong & Farrington, 2006. 2 Aos et al., 2001; 2006.

4

The research underlying the development of R&R was described in the Time To Think: A Coqnitive Model of Offender Rehabilitation and Delinquency Prevention (Ross & Fabiano, 1985). The following presents a brief chronicle of the development. The research that led to the development of R&R was conducted in the following sequential stages over the long-term research project that has continued over forty years. STAGE 1 In 1965, the Department of Clinical Psychology at the University of Waterloo in Canada under the direction of Dr. R. R. Ross, began to collaborate with the Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services in providing treatment and research services at a maximum security institution for female adolescent offenders in a small town in Canada. Faculty members and graduate students from the university worked together with the staff of the institution for more than 10 years in an attempt to develop effective programs to manage the offenders in the institution and to reduce their anti-social behavior after they were released. The first stage of the research was a study of a variety of intervention techniques in controlling the antisocial behavior of adolescent female offenders (e.g. self-mutilation, abscondance, assault, vandalism) in a maximum security institution. After the failure of several treatment approaches (individual and group psychotherapy, case work, and token economies) this long-term research led to the development of a program which yielded a recidivism rate of only 6% for a treatment group compared to a rate of 33% for a matched group of offenders receiving only the regular institution program (Ross & McKay, 1976; 1979). In this successful program, the offenders were persuaded to act as 'therapists' for their peers and were involved in training sessions in which they analyzed (in behavioral terms) the problems of their peer "patients" and were taught interpersonal skills which they used to help modify the behavior of their peers. The program constituted a cognitive-behavioral approach which led them to view themselves not as antisocial problem-ridden individuals, but as prosocial problem-solvers. The program helped them to move from egocentric thinking to a concern for others by placing them in helping roles,. Moreover, by teaching them interpersonal skills, it equipped them with social skills which could help them maintain a prosocial adjustment after release. This program has been considerably modified and refined on the basis of subsequent stages of the research. STAGE 2 Stage 2 of the research was motivated by the negative reaction of Ross and his colleagues (particularly Dr. Paul Gendreau) to Martinson's (1974) widely endorsed edict that in the rehabilitation of offenders "almost nothing works". Research on rehabilitation programs published between 1973 and 1978 was reviewed by Ross and Gendreau. In marked contrast to Martinson's earlier review, their research identified a substantial number of controlled studies which had found significant reductions in recidivism among a wide variety of offenders (Gendreau & Ross, 1979; Ross & Gendreau, 1980).

5

Effective programs were found that had been conducted with a wide variety of types of offenders. Positive outcome had been achieved in some prevention programs for pre-delinquents, in some diversion programs for adolescent offenders, in some community-based programs for hard-core juvenile and adult offenders, and in a small number of institution programs for repeat adult offenders and criminal heroin addicts. Additional studies of effective programs were found in a later review of the literature 1981-1987 (Gendreau & Ross, 1987). A collection of more recent effective programs were presented in Going Straight (Ross, Antonowicz & Dhaliwal, 1995). STAGE 3 The research indicated that effective programs are well outnumbered by programs which fail. Effective programs are exceptional not only in their results but also in their characteristics: the nature of the intervention techniques they employ; the quality of the staff who apply these techniques; the intensity and duration of their program efforts; and the context within which the program is delivered (Gendreau & Ross, 1981). The research revealed that one factor that is fundamental to the difference between programs which "work" and those which fail is the conceptualization of criminal behavior on which the program is based. The conceptual model of criminal behavior determines the goals of the intervention, the intermediate targets on which the program should focus in order to achieve these goals, and a guide for practitioners in terms of the techniques they should employ. Effective programs are based on the view that offending behavior is a consequence of a variety of social, economic, situational, cognitive, and behavioral factors which are known to be functionally related to antisocial behavior and to recidivism. They focus on modifying well-defined behaviors, changing antisocial attitudes, correcting faulty thinking or inappropriate social perception, and developing social competence and prosocial values. A wide variety of intervention modalities have been used in effective correctional programs. However, research revealed that one program component which is common to almost every treatment effort which has been successful is some technique which can influence the offender's thinking. Component analysis revealed that effective programs differed significantly from ineffective programs in terms of their inclusion of techniques which would foster the development of the offender's thinking and reasoning skills, their social comprehension, their problem-solving skills and their values (Ross & Fabiano, 1985). Effective programs included as a target of their intervention not only the offenders' behavior, vocational, or interpersonal skills, but their cognition: their reasoning, attributions, self-evaluation, expectations, understanding and appraisal of the world, and their values. The research suggests that attending to how offenders think may be at least as important as focusing on how they behave.

6

Effective programs included some technique which could enhance the offenders' impulse control, increase their reasoning skills, improve their sensitivity to the consequences of their behavior, improve their ability to comprehend the thoughts and feelings of other people, increase their interpersonal problem-solving skills, broaden their view of the world, and help them to develop alternative interpretations of their environment, social rules, and social obligations. STAGE 4 It seemed reasonable to hypothesize that if modifying offenders' thinking affects their recidivism, there might be something about the thinking of offenders that might be associated with their antisocial behavior in the first place (Ross, 1980). In Stage 4 of the long-term research project, a search of four decades of research literature revealed a considerable body of empirical evidence that many offenders have experienced developmental delays in the acquisition of the following cognitive skills which are essential to social adaptation (Ross & Fabiano, 1985):3

Impulsivity. Many offenders appear to fail to stop and think before they act. When they get an idea or a desire, they immediately respond without stopping to consider whether they should act or not. They do not reason, they respond. Many also appear to fail to think after they act. They do not reflect back on their behavior and its consequences. Therefore, even when they experience punishment, they may not learn to modify their behavior.

Externality. Some evidence was found that many offenders are externally

oriented. They believe that what happens to them depends on fate, chance, or luck. They believe that they are powerless, that they cannot control what happens to them, that they are controlled by other people and circumstances. Given the environments in which many of them have lived, this is not surprising. However, such thinking makes them feel that there is no point in trying to succeed. Therefore, they may lack ambition and persistence.

Concrete Thinking. Many offenders are very concrete in their thinking. Their lack of abstract reasoning gives them major difficulties not only in school but also in understanding the concept of justice and the reasons for rules and laws. Moreover, it may give them difficulties in understanding the thoughts and feelings of other people. One cannot understand how other people are thinking or feeling just by their appearance; one must use abstract reasoning to consider what is going on inside their heads. They may lack an essential skill for successful interpersonal relations: an understanding of the thoughts and feelings of others (i.e., social perspective-taking or empathy).

1 This research was funded by the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada.

7

Conceptual Rigidity. The thinking of many offenders is inflexible, narrow, rigid, intolerant of ambiguity, and dogmatic. Because of this, many continue to engage in behaviors which yield them few rewards and frequently get them into trouble.

Interpersonal Cognitive Problem-solving Skills. Many antisocial individuals

have deficits in interpersonal cognitive problem-solving - the thinking skills which are required for solving problems in interacting with other people. In their interpersonal relations, offenders often fail to recognize that a problem exists or is about to occur. They fail to calculate the consequences of their behavior on other people, and they do not (or cannot) consider alternative solutions to such problems. They keep responding in their same old, ineffective way. Moreover, they may not understand the cause and effect relationship between their behavior and people's reactions to them.

Egocentricity. Many offenders see the world only from their own perspective and

may not have learned to consider how other people think or feel. As a result, they often misinterpret the actions and intentions of others. Their lack of awareness or sensitivity to other people's thoughts or feelings severely impairs their ability to form acceptable relationships with people. The well-recognized selfishness or callousness of offenders may not be just a matter of temperament. It may be a matter of thinking (i.e., a cognitive deficit). Offenders may lack awareness or an appreciation of an important factor in the inhibition of illegal behavior - its effects on other people. Moreover, offenders encounter frequent interpersonal problems because they do not think about how others will feel. Their egocentricity may cause them to be ostracized and alienated.

Values. Lacking social perspective-taking skills, they may fail to develop beyond egocentric, self-centered values. In deciding what is right, they may consider only how it affects themselves, not how it affects other people. "If it is good for me, it's good."

Critical Reasoning. The thinking of many offenders is frequently illogical and lacks self-criticism. As a result, they may be too easily influenced by thoughts which are presented to them not only by others, but by themselves.

Not all offenders have such cognitive difficulties, but a considerable number do. Some offenders have excellent cognitive skills - so good that they never enter the criminal justice system! It must be noted that these are shortcomings in social (interpersonal) reasoning, not deficits in intelligence as measured by I.Q. tests. Such tests do not measure social intelligence. Many offenders have high I.Q.'s but are sadly lacking in social cognitive skills. It must be stressed that it is not only offenders who have such characteristics; they are common among many individuals who have difficulty in social adjustment. In fact, such inadequate reasoning may represent the thinking of all of us at times when we experience social difficulties, stress, or are fatigued or ill, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

8

Cognitive shortcomings are neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause of crime. However, individuals who lack good cognitive skills may be "at risk". They may be unable to withstand the antisocial effects of living in a criminogenic environment of poverty; cultural deprivation; parental criminality/substance abuse; antisocial peers; chronic unemployment; parental discord; or authoritarian, abusive or neglectful parenting… Such conditions may, in fact, not only be the precursors of crime and other deviance, but may also be the social/economic factors which prevent adequate cognitive development in the first place. STAGE 5 The inspection of effective rehabilitation programs indicated that they included some kind of intervention technique which would improve cognitive skills and values. In Stage 5 of the research project, statistical analyses found that effective programs could be reliably differentiated from ineffective programs by the presence of cognitive training. Subsequently, a meta-analysis indicated that most programs which included cognitive training worked; most which did not, failed (Izzo & Ross, 1990)4. That conclusion was later confirmed by a statistical analysis of 44 of the most rigorously evaluated programs (Antonowicz & Ross, 1994). STAGE 6 In Stage 6 of the research project, a comprehensive program was developed for teaching the cognitive skills and values required for social competence. The best techniques from those rehabilitation programs which the review found had led to major reductions in recidivism were adapted and additional techniques were added which other research had indicated could teach social cognitive skills. Techniques and exercises were selected which are enjoyable for antisocial individuals who are not easily motivated and often feel very negative toward school or "therapy." These were then modified and combined into a multifaceted, 35 session (70 hour), small group program. PROGRAM COMPONENTS The following are the major components of the Reasoning and Rehabilitation program which was developed:

Self-Control. Offenders are taught to stop and think before they act; to consider all the consequences before making decisions; to formulate plans; to use thinking techniques to control their emotions and their behavior.

Meta-Cognition. Offenders are taught to tune into and critically assess their own

thinking - to realize that how they think determines what they think, how they feel and how they behave. They are taught thinking strategies as a means of self-regulating their behavior.

2 This study was funded by a research grant from the University of Ottawa.

9

Critical Reasoning. Offenders are taught how to think logically, objectively,and

rationally without distorting the facts or externalizing the blame.

Social Skills. Many offenders act antisocially because they lack the skills to act prosocially. Utilizing a modification of Goldstein's Structured Learning Therapy program, a large number of skills are taught which will help them achieve positive reinforcement rather than rejection in social situations (e.g., responding to criticism; apologizing; negotiating instead of demanding).

Interpersonal Cognitive Problem-Solving Skills. Following Platt's work with

heroin-abusing offenders (Platt, Perry, & Metzger, 1980), the program teaches offenders how to analyze interpersonal problems, how to understand and consider other people's values, behavior and feelings; how to recognize how their behavior affects other people and why others respond to them as they do.

Creative Thinking. To combat their conceptual rigidity a number of techniques

developed by deBono are used to teach offenders alternative thinking; how to consider alternative, prosocial rather than antisocial ways of responding to the problems they experience.

Social Perspective-taking. Throughout the program all of the techniques

emphasize teaching offenders to consider other people's views and feelings and thoughts. In effect, the program emphasizes the development of empathy.

Values Enhancement. A number of group discussion techniques and a large

number of commercially available games are used to teach values; specifically, to move the offender from his egocentric world view to a consideration of the needs of others.

Emotional Management. An offender's success in social adjustment depends on

his/her ability to avoid excessive emotional arousal. Anger management techniques used by psychologists were modified for the program so that they can be used by trainers who are not psychologists, and so that they can be used with other emotions which may be equally or more problematic for many offenders - such as excitement, depression, fear, and anxiety.

Helper Therapy. Whenever practical it is recommended that antisocial offenders be placed in roles in which they behave as prosocial individuals. Rather than treating them as patients, they are asked to be therapists or teachers for each other, and to be helpers for those less fortunate than themselves. By encouraging antisocial individuals to act in prosocial roles, they often come to appreciate the value of prosocial behavior, to recognize the awards it can bring them, and to acquire social skills which can serve as alternatives to their antisocial behavior. Individuals who are placed in such roles often come to see themselves in a very

10

different light and begin to attribute to themselves positive, prosocial characteristics which were previously foreign to them.

The R&R program can be used in almost any institution or community setting. All that is required is a qualified Trainer working in a supportive context; an overhead projector; a flip-chart; and, where possible, a VCR. The program is presented in small-group sessions with emphasis on Socratic discussion. A three volume trainer's manual which provides detailed procedures and materials for delivering the program was developed in 1986: Reasoning & Rehabilitation: A Handbook for Teaching Cognitive Skills. It has been translated into Spanish, Danish, Estonian, German, Latvian, Swedish and Chinese. A special version of the program was developed for application in Canadian penitentiaries: Reasoning & Rehabilitation: A Cognitive Skills Program (Ross & Ross, 1988).

DEVELOPMENT OF R&R2 The new editions of the original Reasoning & Rehabilitation program are based on the most recent findings of the forty year research project. The original Reasoning & Rehabilitation program was based on research conducted before 1985. Since 1985, a considerable amount of research has been reported in the literature that indicated that a new edition of the program had to be developed in the light of new knowledge that has been acquired during the twenty years since the program was first produced. The R&R2 Short Version for Adults is one of a family of specialized versions of the new edition of R&R that has been „creatively‟ titled: “R&R2” R&R2 is the first revision of the R&R program that is responsive to recent research in the following areas:

Research on the effectiveness of the Reasoning & Rehabilitation program;

Research on the relationship between delinquent, criminal and other antisocial behaviours and cognition, emotion and values;

Research on „best practice‟ in offender rehabilitation and delinquency prevention;

Research on 'best practice' in teaching the cognitive/emotional/behavioural skills that underlie prosocial competence;

Research on interventions designed to foster the development of prosocial values;

11

Research on „best practice‟ in teaching problem-solving

Research on „best practice‟ in teaching conflict management

Research on desistance

Research on social cognitive neuroscience.

The original R&R program has also been refined in the light of lessons learned through twenty years of experience of many Trainers in delivering the original program5.

Emotion The original program was also revised to yield increasing emphasis on the role of emotion in competent and prosocial behaviour. Materials and exercises have been included that are designed to teach participants skills in (1) identifying specific emotions, (2) recognizing thoughts that are engendered by their "emotional schemas". Emphasis is placed on "meta-emotion" - how they view their emotions; how they access their emotions and on how they can modify their emotions. Program Model The research on which the original program was based was presented in the book, Time To Think (Ross & Fabiano, 1985). The research that led to the development of the new edition of the program is presented in the book, Rehabilitating Rehabilitation: Neurocriminology for Treatment of Antisocial Behaviour (Ross & Hilborn, 2008). A number of highly significant developments in research on prosocial competence that post-date the first edition are fully discussed in this book – particularly research on the relation between prosocial competence and cognition, emotions and values and research on neuroscience. Careful reading of the book will enable Trainers to thoroughly understand the R&R2 program model, the underlying concepts of the program, its teaching process and the targets of the program - the cognitive/emotional/behavioural skills and values that it aims to teach. It will also lead them to understand and appreciate why these skills and values have been selected and how they can be taught.

5 We use the designation,"Trainer" throughout to refer to those individuals who have been certified by Dr. R.R. Ross or

his delegate as qualified to deliver the R&R2 program. We use the designation, "Instructor" to refer to qualified Trainers (trainers of Trainers) who have been certified by Professor Ross or his Associates to teach the program to individuals who are seeking qualification as Trainers.

12

Rehabilitating Rehabilitation helps Trainers to understand the teaching relationship that is required to yield optimal learning of the skills. It also discusses a number of program principles that R&R2 incorporates:

Motivational Interviewing to foster the engagement of the program participants and their attendance

Prosocial Modelling to promote the development of prosocial values

Prosocial Role-playing to promote the development of prosocial behavior

Relapse Prevention to help participants to maintain the changes they make

Desistance to encourage the acquisition of a long-term prosocial lifestyle. DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT - THE RESPONSIVITY PRINCIPLE IN ACTION Previous versions of the Reasoning & Rehabilitation program were designed for application across the population of offenders, a wide spectrum of different types of individuals. They relied upon a 'shot-gun' approach that did not enable the program to be tailored to the needs and circumstances of particular groups of delinquents or adult offenders. R&R2 Short Version for Adults is one of the new versions of the Reasoning & Rehabilitation program designed to correct this shortcoming of the previous versions of the program. The new edition provides specialized versions of the program that are more appropriate to particular groups. Specialized versions are available that are specifically designed for female offenders; antisocial youths; antisocial adults; youths and adults with ADHD; repeat driving violators; youths and adults with mental health problems; and families. The new edition of R&R was also designed to accommodate various practical and logistical considerations such as the number of hours participants are available for program participation. A CORE CURRICULUM The R&R2 Short Version for Adults has been designed as a program for adults who lack essential prosocial skills and values and are engaging in various disruptive, anti-social or illegal behaviors. It provides a core curriculum of cognitive and emotional skills and values through which Trainers can teach them self-control, problem-solving skills, skills in emotional management, skills in conflict management and negotiation, consequential thinking, alternative thinking, social perspective-taking, and values that underlie prosocial competence.

13

A BRIEF INTERVENTION Most of the social cognitive-behavioral programs that are designed to teach pro-social competence require 50 to 70 sessions, and some are extensive programs that require delivery over several years. The original version of R&R involved 35 to 38, two hour sessions requiring as many as 70 hours of training – often impractical for many agencies. The R&R2 Short Version for Adults was designed, in part, to provide a much briefer program. The Short version of the program teaches an updated core curriculum of R&R and does so in only 14 sessions. Each session requires 90 minutes of training. If the program is delivered 3 sessions per week, it can be taught in 5 weeks. Although each session requires 90 minutes, we recommend scheduling 2 hours per session thereby enabling trainers to reward participants by ending earlier when appropriate. This also gives some flexibility to enable Trainers to give individual attention where required. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES The R&R2 Short Version for Adults is a cost-effective intervention designed to help particppants to recognize the skills that underly prosocial competence; to understand their benefits; to determine whether they possess these skills; to realize that they can learn the skills or improve the skills they already have acquired; and to motivate them to practice these skills. The program is designed to stimulate them to engage themselves in the process of pro-social development. RISK PRINCIPLE

R&R2 appears to go against the grain of the “Risk Principle” of effective offender treatment that asserts that treatment programs should target only high-risk offenders Doing so offers the “biggest bang for the buck”. Many if not most low-risk clients may be at such a low risk to re-offend that additional treatment would not decrease their risk of offending any further when compared to clients who do not receive any treatment. Moreover, involving low-risk offenders in programs particularly those that include high-risk offenders, may be an expeditious way of changing a low risk offender into a high-risk offender as a consequence of labelling, contagion or modelling. However we took the position that it is not only illegal behavior that programs should be designed to target. Low risk of reoffending does not mean low risk of engaging in other problems that should concern us. Offenders cannot realistically be said to be rehabilitated if, although they do not re-offend, they remain socially inept; chronically unemployed, substance dependent; dependent on welfare; a burden to the health and social service systems; a model of antisocial behavior to their children… Clearly, more than risk of reoffending should be considered in selecting individuals for participation in programs. Accordingly, we recommend that R&R2 programs be offered to low-risk as well as high-risk offenders.

14

Nevertheless, we urge Trainers to assess the risk level of each potential participant before commencing the program and, whenever possible, form separate groups for low and high-risk participants.

We also recommend that, whenever it is possible to do so, a few individuals who can model prosocial behaviour be included in the groups. They might be selected from the agency‟s volunteers, or other offenders who have completed the program or have clearly have adopted a prosocial identity or other more prosocial offenders who, though low-risk, are respected by the group members.

Furthermore, in contrast to many “offending behaviour” programs the content of R&R2

programs is deliberately devoid of requirements that the participants discuss their illegal behaviour in the group. Trainers are urged to ensure that the group discussions do not deteriorate into discussions of the techniques (or the rewards) of antisocial or criminal acts. Moreover, Trainers must ensure that they correct antisocial talk and behaviour whenever it occurs in the group.

It should be recognized that one advantage of involving low-risk offenders in the R&R2

Short Version for Adults is that it may provide them with skills that enable them to function better and thereby enable them to avoid the antisocial „contagion‟ that can occur by being with high-risk offenders. PROGRAM DELIVERY SCHEDULE The fourteen sessions of the R&R2 Short Version For Adults may be delivered in any schedule that is appropriate to the agency's requirements and the motivation and availability of the Trainer and the participants. The ideal is three sessions delivered every second day each week. ‘HOMEWORK’ ASSIGNMENTS Although it provides only a little more than 1,000 minutes of “in-class” training, the short program is actually much longer than that since an essential element of the program is what participants are required to do outside of the group. In order to foster the transfer of cognitive skills from the "classroom" to "real-life", most sessions include specific instructions to participants to practice the skills they have learned in the group sessions in their everyday activities beyond the group situation. They are directed to try-out the skills in appropriate situations or, if possible, to teach them to others. They are also directed to pay attention and observe how other people respond to one another in terms of the skills that are taught in the sessions. Participants will be surprised to see how well they themselves do in comparison with others who have not been trained in the program.

Each session must include some time for obtaining feedback from participants on their "out-of-class" observations and experiences.

15

SHORTER IS BETTER Most social cognitive-behavioural programs that are designed to teach pro-social competence long-term intervention. Such programs tax the motivation of many offenders and are associated with very high attrition rates. They also tax the motivation of many trainers and the budgets of their agencies. Some programs require delivery over many months (even years in some cases). Such programs are unrealistically demanding and too expensive for the human resources of most agencies. Many offenders (particularly those on probation and those with short prison sentences) are unable to be provided with such comprehensive programs because of the limited period of time that they are involved with agencies responsible for their treatment. It was not just practical considerations that led us to develop short versions of R&R. A review of evaluations of many cognitive programs has concluded that the largest effects are for smaller programs. Supporting that conclusion is a recent review of evaluation studies of R&R that indicated that a shorter cognitive skills program can be just as effective as a longer one (Antonowicz, 2005). Short-term social-cognitive interventions (as short as 12 hours) have also been found to be effective in reducing aggressive behavior (Guerra & Slaby, 1990; Lochman et al., 1984;). The behavioral changes engendered by such programs have often been found to be long-term (Guerra & Slaby, 1989). Three independent studies provide evidence that versions of R&R that are not as long as the original can be effective in reducing reoffending.

1. Probationers in Texas An abridged version of the R&R program yielded significant improvement

in anti-social behavior among high-risk felony probationers in Texas (Kownacki, 1995).

2. Institutionalized Adolescents in Barcelona The use of a few of the core techniques of R&R were found to produce

significant improvement in the social adjustment of institutionalized adolescent offenders in Spain. (Garrido, 1995).

3. Prison Inmates in the Canary Islands Significant improvement in the post-institutional success of prison inmates

in Prisons in Tenerife was found when a shortened version of R&R was delivered in combination with social work services (Martin & Hernandez, 1994).

16

PROGRAM CONTENT The techniques taught in all versions of the R&R2 edition include, with some modification, selected components of a variety of social skills, critical reasoning, values education and cognitive problem solving programs developed by psychologists and educators for various populations6 Some of these materials were included in the original Reasoning & Rehabilitation Handbook but others have been updated and some have been added based on research published since R&R was produced in 1986. Many of the techniques by themselves could provide an extensive program teaching a specific cognitive skill. However, the particular combination and blend of the selected techniques and the adaptations of them for R&R2 Short Versions constitute a more efficient and effective approach. The R&R2 Short Version For Adults program is designed to teach participants the following pro-social competencies: Problem-Solving: Interpersonal Problem - Solving. Consequential Thinking: Considering the consequences of one's thinking,

feeling and acting. Social Skills: Thinking & behaving in socially skilled ways. Balance: Balancing one's thoughts, feelings and actions. Emotional Competence: Learning to recognize and manage one's emotions. Values: Learning to understand and appreciate prosocial

values. Conflict Resolution: Learning how to successfully resolve conflicts. Rational Thinking: Learning to think logically and objectively, to

recognize and modify thinking errors and schemas that influence their behaviour their self-efficacy and their values

Social Perspective-taking Learning to go beyond their egocentric perspective to

recognize and empathize with others.

6 We are grateful to the authors of such programs who gave permission to Dr. Ross to utilize their techniques

17

A BLENDED PROGRAM The original R&R presented separate modules for training each skill. In contrast, the R&R2 Short Version for Adults is a blended program that stresses the interaction among the various skills by making explicit linkages among them in each session. The cognitive skills taught in the program are interrelated and, therefore, it is essential that participants learn them, not as independent functions, but as sub-skills of social cognition. Accordingly, each session builds on and is linked to each other session in such a way that the participant learns to apply skills acquired in previous sessions to effectively deal with the issues and problems that are the focus of subsequent sessions. SEQUENCING Each session in the R&R2 Short Version for Adults focuses on teaching specific skills in a particular order. Accordingly, it is important for the Trainer to follow the required sequence of sessions. Failure to do so will interfere with the participant's progress, may confuse and frustrate them and may prevent their cognitive development.

AUTOMATIC THINKING versus SKILLED THINKING Many programs that aim to teach cognitive skills to antisocial or 'at risk' individuals or offenders make what we have come to realize is an erroneous assumption: that they do not think. That is an assumption that is based on believing that because many antisocial individuals frequently react quickly, impulsively, and emotionally to the problems they encounter, they "do not think before they act". Accordingly, such programs urge them to "Stop and Think" - exhortations that are unlikely to have much effect on individuals who have not developed adequate thinking, emotional and behavioural skills that can make stopping to think worthwhile. More recent research that we review in Rehabilitating Rehabilitation (Ross & Hilborn, 2008) indicates that although their reactions are frequently very quick, antisocial individuals (including offenders) are not reacting without thought. They may fail to think carefully and skillfully and they may make judgements about what to do without analysis of the situation and without consideration of the possible negative consequences of their intended actions; but they do, indeed, think. However, their thinking is often both unskilled and antisocial. There is another faulty assumption that is made in previous versions of R&R - the assumption that, in contrast to antisocial individuals, prosocial individuals 'stop and think' and engage in careful reasoning before they act. The simple truth (supported by neuroscience research) is that when faced with problems, most of us, most of the time, depend on what we refer to as Automatic Thinking or AT (Reber, 1993; Langer, 1989; Stenberg, 2000). We seldom delay our response while we carefully analyze the problem, think of a variety of alternative solutions and consider the consequences of each before we act. On the contrary, we react without appearing to engage in any

18

thinking at all. We appear to be not unlike the individuals we urge to stop and think and whom we criticize for failing to do so! However, although we may not have any awareness that we are engaging in any thinking or reasoning process, our reactions are frequently preceded by cognitive processing that has been so well practiced over time that it has become automatic, rapid, and apparently effortless and unconscious. Thus, although we may think, we do so with without pausing to reason unless and until we realize that our Automatic Thinking is not working to solve the problems we face. Only then do we become self-aware or 'mindful' of our thinking, our feelings, our values, and our behaviour. Many antisocial individuals do not think well, but we must recognize that they are doing the best they can given their present thinking skills and their present values. It is not just that they do not do better but that they cannot do better. Most have lacked the opportunities or the role models through which they could have learned the skills and values required for more effective and more prosocial functioning. Thus, their Automatic Thinking has two characteristics that must be addressed if they are to be helped to achieve prosocial competence: 1. Their Automatic Thinking may be rapid but is not likely to be skilled.

2. Their Automatic Thinking is likely to reflect antisocial attitudes, beliefs and values.

3. Their Automatic Thinking may be focused on the potential rewards of their intended behaviour and not on the potential negative consequences of that behaviour.

The goal of R&R2 Short Version For Adults is to help them to become aware of and learn to replace their unskilled and anti-social Automatic Thinking with prosocial Skilled Thinking (ST). It is designed to improve their thinking and values so that they may choose a more prosocial path. It teaches them prosocial cognitive, emotional and behavioural skills that will enable them to follow that path with success. Improving their thinking is not enough. We must also help them to acquire prosocial competence in emotional and behavioural skills so that their Automatic Feeling and Automatic Behaviour also become more skilled, more prosocial and more effective. THE PERSON IS NOT THE PROBLEM The R&R2 programs avoid another shortcoming that characterises many cognitive-behavioural programs: the subtle moralizing that is associated with programs that focus on the individuals' reactive behaviours and blame them for their antisocial behaviour rather than recognizing, and fully appreciating, that a lack of skills often underlies such behaviours.

19

Such programs promote the view that 'the person is the problem'. R&R2 rejects that position and is based on the view that 'the problem is not the person but the person's problems'. TRAINING NOT THERAPY

Our model is not a model for therapy in the usual sense of that word. That is, its

focus is not on treating personal problems. Rather, it emphasizes the importance of equipping antisocial individuals with skills and attitudes which will help them to avoid such problems or to cope with them more effectively either by themselves or through the help of others. Such training may be therapeutic in that it fosters improved interpersonal and social adjustment. However, it is not therapy that deals directly with the participant‟s personal, social or emotional problems. On the contrary, it is designed to equip them with skills which will enable them to deal with these problems themselves; skills which will also help them to avoid such problems in the first place.

It is clearly essential that the offender's personal, social, situational and experiential

problems and his/her criminal behavior be effectively responded to. However, we suggest that these matters should be left out of the program sessions and dealt with elsewhere. Their participation in an R&R2 program is likely to make the offenders more willing to accept help with their problems and their improved skills may equip them to benefit from the counselling, therapy and other assistance that the agency offers to help them with these other matters.

However, we consider it to be essential that the training must be relevant to the clients. The training materials must be relevant to the social, cultural, situational and socioeconomic characteristics of the participants to ensure that they can relate meaningfully to them and to see the relevance of applying the material to the reality of their daily life.

NOT AN OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR PROGRAM

The R&R2 programs should not be viewed as an example of what are referred to as “offending behaviour” programs. The R&R program is an approach to the treatment not only of criminal behaviour but of a variety of antisocial behaviours. We suggest that much of the antisocial behaviour of offenders is similar to that of many other antisocial individuals. Some of it may differ in its form and its severity, but most of it does not differ in terms of the underlying factors that support it and the factors that should be addressed in order to prevent it. Our view is that many antisocial individuals have acquired an antisocial lifestyle as their way of coping with their personal and environmental life circumstances and that they maintain that lifestyle because they believe that there is no other life-style that would enable them to cope as well; or because they have not yet developed the requisite skills; or because they have not been persuaded that an alternative, prosocial life-style is possible for them.

20

Whether or not individuals who have not developed procial skills become involved in criminal activity is a function of a host of social/environmental/psychological variables. However, their lack of prosocial cognitive/emotional/behavioural skills may place individuals at risk of a wide range of other problem behaviours including educational failure, alcohol addiction, emotional disorder, sexual dysfunction, unemployment, financial instability, antisocial driving, and child and spouse abuse. The goal of reducing recidivism or re-offending has become the sine qua non of offender treatment programs and the marker of the success of the offender rehabilitation movement. Whereas such a goal may be appropriate to one of the primary purposes of the criminal justice system, it fails to do justice to the many other problems of offenders. Offenders are not just offenders. Their offending behaviour actually comprises only a portion of their everday activity. Through an excessive or even exclusive concern for their illegal behaviour we may have blinded ourselves to the fact that there are other aspects of the offender‟s daily life that must be addressed. Limiting programs to interventions that seek to discourage their illegal behaviour is short-sighted - we may reduce their offending but leave them to continue to drain the social service and health (including mental health) systems. We propose setting a much broader distal goal: helping individuals develop the interpersonal skills and values that are required to enable them to seek and maintain gainful employment; to find enjoyment in life without depending on alcohol and drugs; to contribute to the well-being of others; to function as effective parents rather than parents whose interpersonal skills and values lead them to repeat the ineffective, pathological or criminogenic parenting with children that may have spawned their own antisocial life-style. Teaching prosocial competence is designed not only to teach them skills that can enable them to develop a life-style alternative to crime but enable them to acquire an alternative means to success. We specifically discourage participants from discussing their criminal history in the training sessions. We do not want them to compete with each other in terms of who has the most impressive criminal record. More important, we do not want to allow them to promote the impression that their most important characteristic is their criminality or their antisocial behaviour. The focus of this program is not their past, it is the present and what they can do now to improve their future. ORGANIZATION OF THE PROGRAM HANDBOOK The Handbook for the R&R2 Short Version For Adults consists of two separate volumes.

21

1. The "Handbook" presents detailed instructions for the Trainers and supplementary materials that are required for each session.

2. The "Participant's Workbook", contains exercises and worksheets for the participants. Each participant should be given a Participant's Workbook and be asked to bring it with him/her to each session. However, since some may fail to do so, extra copies of the materials to be used in each session should be available.

Introduction for Trainers An Introduction for Trainers is provided for each session to indicate the purpose of the session and to provide an overview of the training procedures to be followed within the session. The Introduction for Trainers indicates the specific learning goals and skill(s) to be targeted in that lesson. Each session has as its main target the teaching of one particular skill. However, each session also aims to provide participants the opportunity to practice skills that have been taught in previous session. Thus, there is considerable overlap among the sessions. Such overlap is intentional. Repetition and practice can be educational and over-learning can aid the transfer of skills to other situations. Moreover, the content within which the skills are taught differs in each repetition so that participants practice applying the skill in a variety of different contexts. Training Procedure Detailed step-by-step instructions for the Trainer and a suggested script for him/her to follow in delivering the program are presented for each session. The script is indented and presented in bold font. Although all the instructions are presented in an extraordinarily detailed manner to facilitate quality control of program delivery, Trainers must avoid excessive dependency on the Handbook. The Handbook should be reviewed before each session but serve only as a guide during the session. It is neither necessary nor advisable to follow the script in a rigid manner. Trainers must communicate in a manner that is appropriate to their own personal style and the characteristics of the participants. The content of each session has been carefully selected to ensure that it lacks the appearance of therapy or of school activities which may be aversive to many of the individuals who are likely to become participants in the program. Most activities are intrinsically motivating and the materials provide a program that is both highly enjoyable and highly demanding for such participants. However, Trainers should feel free to take an eclectic approach to program delivery and to select for presentation the training content presented in the Handbook which appear best suited to the specific needs of the participants and to substitute other content that is more appropriate for the specific

22

group. In modifying the content to suit the characteristics of the participants, Trainers should adhere to the training procedures, goals and principles that are presented in the Handbook. The content may be modified, but the training process should not be. Program Materials Most of the materials required to deliver each session are presented at the end of the Training Procedure for the particular session. They include Hand-outs, Worksheets and Overhead Masters. Each appears in a form that enables their reproduction through a colour photocopier. Power points are also provided for Trainers who have access to presentation equipment. However, if necessary, the PowerPoints can be printed and converted to overhead transparencies. Exercises The exercises that are presented in each session are structured opportunities for participants to learn and then practice the skills and values targeted in each session. In many instances, exercises also require the application of cognitive skills acquired in previous sessions and, thus, provide opportunities to review these skills and to practice them in tandem with new skills. The primary vehicle for teaching the skills is guided group discussion around issues of interpersonal conflict, social problems, values, etc. Throughout most of the sessions, teaching is conducted using a Socratic process in which participants are asked questions to stimulate them to engage in intensive discussions about how they can cope with problems and interpersonal conflicts. They are led to discover rather than simply being told what are more appropriate and more effective ways of doing so. It is essential that discussions be task-oriented and focused on the cognitive skills being learned. The exercises have been designed to be uncomplicated but challenging. Trainers must ensure that the examples they select for participants to practice are just sufficiently above the level at which they are functioning to be challenging, but not so far above that they are discouraging or overwhelming. Prosocial Modeling and Role-playing Exercises We all play a variety of roles on a daily basis. These roles help to define our identity. They form the scripts that tell us who we are and how we should behave. Individuals who have acquired an antisocial identity often engage in antisocial ways to preserve that identity. Prosocial individuals are capable of performing antisocial roles. However, prosocial role-playing may not be in the role repertoire of many antisocial individuals. Individuals who are raised in impoverished, restricted environments may not receive adequate prosocial role-playing opportunities. Some may simply not realize that there are effective alternative ways of interacting with other people. Some may feel that behaving prosocially would ruin their image. Some may feel that they would not enjoy

23

behaving in a prosocial manner. Some may feel that there would be nothing to gain by doing so. Some may fear that behaving in a prosocial manner in their environment would invite censure by their antisocial peers. Some may feel that if they tried to relate prosocially they would be rejected both by antisocial others and by prosocial others. However, antisocial individuals can be led to engage in prosocial roles if and when they feel it is safe to do so. We can lead antisocial individuals to practice prosocial roles by engaging them in role-playing activities in the training group in which there is no threat and because the activity involved is merely a simulation or a game. Role-Taking For many years, R&R Trainers have been urged to engage participants in the training groups in assisting in the training of other participants. Such activities are based, in part, on the principle that the best way to learn something is to teach it to others. However, these activities are also designed to lead the participants to believe that they are competent since they can teach the skills to others. However, neuroscience research has taught us that there is a more important reason for engaging R&R participants in teaching other participants. Prosocial neural connections can be formed not only by observing the behavior of prosocial models but also by engaging in prosocial activities. R&R2 programs do both. They engage antisocial participants in playing prosocial roles (the experiential factor) and by so doing they frequently expose all of the participants to their otherwise antisocial peers behaving in an prosocial manner (the observing factor). Moreover, by asking antisocial participants to give feedback to their prosocial role-playing peers as to how well they performed the prosocial roles and how they could improve their prosocial role-playing, all antisocial participants are engaged in thinking of prosocial alternatives (the rational factor). Antisocial individuals can learn new prosocial roles by playing prosocial roles. Role-Playing 'Works' There are many early studies that demonstrate that practice in performing prosocial behaviors is effective in promoting the development of prosocial attitudes and behavior (e.g. Barton, 1981). Many programs that engaged delinquents and adult offenders in prosocial role-playing successfully reduced their recidivism (Antonowicz & Ross, 1994). The value of role-playing has been confirmed by most of the metanalyses of offender rehabilitation programs and an analysis of the best designed studies found a substantial difference depending on whether or not programs included role-playing; 50% of successful programs included a role-playing component, whereas only 17% of unsucessful programs did so (Antonowicz and Ross, 1994).

Role-playing and Cognition: Role-playing can yield cognitive benefits. Participants can be taught to think about and recognize the underlying feelings, attitudes and beliefs of the person whose character they are playing and, thereby, they are led to engage in practicing social perspective-taking.

24

Self-reflection: As they play roles they are both "in role and at the same time a little apart from it and thus are engaged in reflective thinking - noticing and managing their own thoughts" (Blatner & Wiener, 2007). Behind The Mask Participants can also be helped to realize through role-playing that they, like all of us, wear masks in their daily lives; why they do so (e.g. to appear tough); and how the masks they choose can be self-defeating. They can also be led to realize and think about the fact that by changing their masks they can change their thinking, their feelings and their behavior. They become aware of the roles they play, but they also learn that they can choose different roles. We have revised most of the exercises in the R&R programs such that they are much more prosocial, more experiential, less didactic and less dependent on 'Trainer Talk' (which participants often hear but to which they seldom listen). The program emphasizes active rather than passive participation in the learning process. Our experience and social cognitive neuroscience suggests that „Action is better than Talk‟.

Participants are assigned prosocial roles to play in most program sessions as they practice, in interaction with other participants, the skills that the program teaches. These activities not only enhance learning but also give participants an opportunity to test and assess in a safe environment how they would feel behaving in a prosocial manner. It is essential that the roles assigned to the participants are prosocial roles. Engaging them in antisocial roles would be counterproductive. A goal of the R&R2 programs is the development of concern for others. Concern for others can not be acquired by a didactic approach – by being told by others that it is worthwhile. It can be acquired early in life through adequate exposure to and experience with caring significant others who actually display it. It can also be acquired later in life by practicing it. The exercises in the R&R2 program engage them in expressing both understanding and concern for the thoughts and feelings of others and obtaining reinforcement from their peers for so doing. They also expose them to otherwise antisocial peers who are engaged in activities in which they behave as socially competent models who display both understanding and concern. CONDUCTING THE SESSIONS GROUP SIZE & COMPOSITION The ideal group size for the program is eight. This varies, of course, with the characteristics of the members of each particular group, but generally the aim should be to have no less than four and no more than ten participants in any session. Groups can function with less than four members, but they are limited in the number of sub-grouping

25

techniques one can use and the variety of different perspectives to which individual participants are exposed. Groups composed of more than eight may limit the opportunities for individual members to express their views and may be difficult to control given the intensity of the discussion which is desired. Ten is the maximum. However, with particularly difficult participants, six must be considered to be the maximum to ensure that training does not become secondary to managing and controlling. Some of the participants may already seem to have competence in the skills that are taught in some sessions. These individuals may still profit from the practice and, more important, they may profit from the experience of assisting the Trainer in teaching other group members; an arrangement we strongly recommend. We believe that, whenever possible, a reasonable mix of abilities should be sought for most groups. The less able can learn by observing the most able who, in turn, can learn by teaching the others. However, care must be taken to ensure that highly intelligent participants (particularly intolerant ones) do not become bored or impatient with the less talented participants, and that the latter are not made to feel inadequate through comparison of their performance with that of the other members in the group. FACILITIES The R&R2 Short Version For Adults requires no special facilities or equipment except an overhead projector and a flip chart. Ready access to a photocopier is essential for making transparencies of the overhead masters. Video recording and playback equipment and equipment for Power Point presentation is optional but it enables an alternative way of presenting the materials in some sessions. The space required is a room which can accommodate the equipment and a maximum of ten participants seated at tables. There must be sufficient space at the front of the room to enable two or three participants to role-play in full view of the other participants. PLACEMENT We recommend the following room arrangement which ensures that participants can be placed so that they can talk face-to-face, and so that they have an unobstructed view of the overhead screen, the flip-chart and the Trainer. This arrangement also enables the trainer to position him/herself at the front of the group when teaching and using the overhead or flip-chart, or to position him/herself unobtrusively at the back of the group during group-centered discussions, or to move around in front of or behind the participants in order to focus attention or control or encourage individual members. A U-shaped format also works well.

26

. Length of Sessions The program has been designed for a 90 minute per session delivery. Cognitive training requires participants and trainers to engage in intellectual exercises which, though highly stimulating, can be exhausting. Accordingly, training should usually be limited to 90 minutes in any single day; however, scheduling 2 hours for each session enables Trainers to have some flexibility in order to give extra time for practicing the skills in various activities such as games or to spend additional time with individuals who may require more individualized training. Scheduling Although the ideal schedule is 2-3 sessions per week, R&R2 was designed to enable considerable flexibility in program delivery. Scheduling of sessions can be adjusted to suit local circumstances such as the availability of participants, the level of each group's readiness for specific lessons, and the convenience of both participants and Trainers. Scheduling arrangements should always be guided by the primary goal of maximizing motivation. However, it must also be remembered that the group must meet regularly in order to keep their newly acquired skills clearly in their minds. Following the sequence of sessions as they are presented in the Handbook is key to ensuring that the skills are taught in such a way that they are relevant, have meaning

27

and have impact. However, Trainers need not think their task is to get through the entire program in the 12 sessions. Rather, they should take time to ensure that the group understands the skill being taught. The aim is to teach the participants to think; it is not just to deliver the whole program in an allotted time. Ideally, each participant in each group should commence the program at the same time. However, the R&R2 Short Version For Adults has been designed such that when that is not practical, staggered entry can be accomodated so that one or two participants can enter a program in a group that has already completed one or two sessions. In such cases, Trainers must provide the new entrant with a 'catch-up' individual session to bring him/her up to date with the others. INITIAL PRE-PROGRAM INTERVIEW The Trainer must conduct an initial interview on an individual basis with every participant before the first training session with the group. There are several purposes for this meeting:

Screening: It can be used as a screening opportunity to ensure that the individual is suited for the program.

Assessment: It can serve as an opportunity to assess the individuals' strengths and weaknesses vis a vis the cognitive/emotional skills and values that the program seeks to improve.

Orientation: The interview can also enable the Trainer to discuss training with each participant on a personal basis and to provide them with an understanding of the nature and goals of the program and their responsibility re. program participation. It can also be used to respond to questions and concerns regarding their participation in the program. It can be used to indicate requirements and rules the agency establishes re. attendance and completion of out-of-class assignments.

Motivation: The primary purpose of the initial interview is motivational. It should be viewed, as an opportunity for the Trainer(s) to develop a working relationship with each participant, and also as an opportunity to do some lobbying to get their support for the training program.

Trainers must take the perspective that motivation is not simply a characteristic of the individual participant but is the result of the interactions the participant has with the Trainer. The interview should be conducted in a manner consistent with the principles of Motivational Interviewing.

Presentation: In the individual meetings Trainers should present to each participant a personalized version of the following:

28

I understand that things have not been going too well for you. You have

been having problems that are making life pretty uncomfortable.

You have been asked to participate in a program that is designed to help you acquire a number of skills that you can use to help you overcome some of the difficulties you have been having.

It will equip you with tools that will help you to avoid these kinds of

difficulties in the future.

I know that people have been letting you know that they think you need to change your behaviour. However, you may not want to change.

You may not think you need to change. You may think you can not change. You may think that there is no point in trying to change. You may think there is nothing you can do about the difficulties you

have been experiencing. However, the program will show you that there are some tools that

you can use that can work if you decide to use them. I want to make it clear to you that this program is not therapy. We are not going to try and "fix you". In the group you will not have

to tell anyone about your personal problems. That does not mean that they are not important. What we are going to do is have you work on your problems outside of the group. We are going to teach you in the group some skills that will allow you to deal with your problems in a more effective way than you may have in the past.

What we are going to do is teach you some skills that you can use to

"fix" your own problems.

But it will be your choice.

You may, or you may not, decide to use the skills we will teach you. When you find out what the skills are you can decide if you want to

use them. Wait and see before you decide.

29

We think that if you learn them and use them you will be a lot happier than you have been and you will have far fewer hassles with people.

All we ask is that you give us a chance to show you some ways you

can make life easier for yourself. You may not think you need to use the skills we will teach you, but

we want you to at least know what they are. The skills we are going to show you are skills that a lot of research

has found are skills that many successful people have used to get success in in sports, in school, in making money, in getting along with people, and getting what they want in life.

It is true that many successful people are successful because they

had wealthy parents, a good education, lots of opportunities, good jobs, or great athletic ability or great intelligence, or great musical talent, or because they were just lucky.

High intelligence good education and lots of opportunities are

important but they are no guarantee of success. Many people are not very successful even though they were fortunate enough to have had these advantages.

To achieve personal, financial and social success, individuals need something else:

They need thinking skills.

They need problem-solving skills.

They need skills in controlling and expressing their feelings.

They need social skills - skills in dealing with people.

Even people who come from extremely poor backgrounds and have had limited education and few opportunities have become successful by using these skills.

The program you are being offered is a program that was developed

by a number of researchers and professors from universities in Europe and in North America. Some parts of your program are exactly the same as programs that are taught in colleges and universities.

30

Don't worry - we know you can handle it - you will find that the skills are easy to learn and you will find learning them enjoyable, but also hard work.

To learn them you must attend the sessions regularly. And you must

participate seriously and fully in the group activities. If you want to become good at them, you must practice the skills you

learn in each session as often as you can outside of the group sessions. I will ask you to work on some assignment between sessions. The assignments will usually consist of practicing the skills we have worked on in the group.

Practice is essential. The assignments will be opportunities for you to test your ability to

apply the skill learned in the group. I will also ask you to watch other people to see that lots of other

people do not have the skills you will be learning in this program.

The skills you learn in this program are skills that can help you in many of your activities - in school, in getting along with people, in making friends, in getting good jobs, and even in sports.

THE ROLE OF THE TRAINER This Handbook presents detailed, step-by-step instructions for delivering the R&R2 Short Version for Adults. However, it must not be viewed as a cookbook that provides a recipe which anyone can follow to the letter and expect to deliver an effective program. The Handbook describes the essential ingredients for the program and indicates how these ingredients should be prepared and served; but a successful program requires more than that. It requires a good cook who knows not only how to follow a recipe but also how to modify it to suit the characteristics of his/her clientele and how to present it in a form that is appetizing. The success of all R&R2 programs depends in large measure on the quality of the trainer. Trainers should view themselves not as lecturers who are providing information, nor as missionaries who are inculcating values, nor as therapists who are trying to counsel people, nor as entertainers who are only providing stimulation and enjoyment for the offender's leisure time. Trainers must be 'teachers' in all the positive senses of that term.

31

Trainers must not only be task-givers but also group-leaders and resource persons. They must listen as well, and as often, as they speak. They must not only provide structure and manage. They must also stimulate, challenge and encourage. Most important - they must empathize and reinforce. TEACHING - NOT PREACHING The goal of all of the R&R2 programs is not simply to communicate information. Limiting training to providing information on cognitive skills or values is not likely to be an effective way to improve the participants' prosocial competence. The R&R2 program is designed to enable the participants to learn cognitive skills and values through a discovery process rather than a didactic process. It is designed not only to have the participants know about these skills and values but to practice them both in the group and in out-of-class assignments so that they become an integral part of their thinking and behavioural repertoire. Trainers involve participants throughout the program in a process in which they are led to question the effectiveness of their current approach to problems and to question their personal value assumptions about a range of interpersonal and social issues. Participants should never be confronted in a critical or demeaning manner. They should be challenged to think about their behaviour and their values - challenged supportively. They should be presented with prosocial alternatives to their customary way of thinking and behaving. They should then be engaged in practicing these alternatives, and guided into realizing their benefits. THE GROUP ATMOSPHERE It is the Trainer's responsibility to establish a group atmosphere for all R&R2 programs that is markedly different from that of many other educational or training programs. The ideal atmosphere in R&R2 groups is informal, but highly task-oriented; thought provoking, but somewhat frustrating (because answers are not always provided); stimulating, but unsettling; lively; debate-like; loud; and emotional. However, the sessions must also be controlled. The trainer must maintain control at all times, not only in order to prevent the participants from becoming unruly, but also to ensure that they continue to focus their attention on the skills that are being taught. The sessions should be conducted at a brisk pace, both to maintain interest and to stimulate a high level of cognitive activity. R&R2 materials and activities were carefully selected to ensure that they will stimulate conflict for participants between their currently held antisocial beliefs, attitudes, values and behavioural choices and prosocial alternatives. Exposure to such conflict is essential for cognitive and emotional growth.

32

Although many interesting issues are discussed, the focus of the discussions should not be the issues per se. The Trainer must continually focus the group's attention and activity on the targeted cognitive process, no matter how fascinating the discussion of the issues becomes. If in any session participants question the value of discussing an issue this may indicate that they have become too focused on the content of the session rather than on the process or the skill being taught. Trainers should explain the purpose again and make it relevant through the use of examples which relate the skill to situations or experiences which are familiar to the participants. Trainers should seldom take an active part in the discussions. It may take a long time to settle an issue that a Trainer could have settled in minutes. Give them "time to think" and whenever possible, let them settle their own differences of opinion and do their own arguing. The Trainer's job is to encourage participants to think, not to do the thinking for them. R&R2 programs are Client-centered not Trainer-centered. Trainers must be prepared to leave issues unresolved and questions unanswered. It is neither the issue nor the answer that is important. It is the process of reasoning that matters for the purpose of the program. Note: when answers are provided and closure is achieved, thinking ends. Trainers should not express their personal opinions except in the following circumstances:

They need to do so in order to stimulate thinking

The participants are genuinely interested in knowing what the Trainer thinks. If the Trainer is pressed to state his/her opinion after an issue is settled, then a direct answer is in order.

If the participants' arguments lead the Trainers to change their opinion on an issue they should tell them that they have changed their view, whether or not they are asked.

Although Trainers should avoid expressing their own opinions, that does not mean that they should refrain from telling a participant what are prosocial alternatives to the antisocial views that the participant may voice. The Trainer must lead participants to recognize when their view is antisocial and should suggest a prosocial alternative.

The program was designed to be in accord with the participants‟ attention span. The average person thinks at a rate of 800 words per minute. However, they speak at only 125-150 words per minute. That is one reason why people's minds wander, especially

33

during a lengthy presentation. The average adult has an attention span of about eight minutes. Participants in R&R2 programs may be able or willing to attend to you for considerably less than eight minutes. Accordingly, the program was designed such that there is no long presentations by the Trainer. We also suggest that Trainers “work the room” by, for example, being very active and „shifting‟ every few minutes by moving to another side of the room; stopping and asking specific individuals questions; drawing an individual‟s attention to the flipchart or overhead, asking them to write something down or to stop and think about something…anything to draw their attention back to the topic. LEARNING STYLE The program was designed to take into account that approximately 70% of the participants will be visually-oriented; they learn best by seeing. Thus, it makes frequent use of outlines and forms on which participants make notes, overhead transparencies, pictures, drawings and flip-chart presentations. Clear and simple reading materials are also provided. The most important visual stimulus is you, the Trainer. You must always be a prosocial role model. What they will learn from just observing you will be as important as anything you will directly teach them. The program was also designed to be responsive to the approximately 20% of the participants who will be auditorially-oriented; they learn best by listening. They prefer oral instructions and do well in discussion groups. They may choose not to take notes. They may even look away and seem to be bored. However, they will learn not only from what the Trainer says but from what the other participants say. That is one reason why the program is designed to frequently stimulate intense discussions. 5% to 10% of the participants will be primarily kinesthetic. They learn best by actually performing a task.That is one of the reasons for our including in the program many exercises in which they actually practice the skills you are teaching. The teaching model for the program directs Trainers to:

Tell them.

Show them.

Have them practice. THE TRAINER/PARTICIPANT RELATIONSHIP Prosocial Modelling Research reported by Trotter (2001) has clearly demonstrated the value of prosocial modelling by staff working with involuntary or resistant clients. Trainers who wish participants in R&R2 to acquire the prosocial skills, attitudes and behaviours they are teaching must always model the interpersonal cognitive skills and values that they wish the participants to acquire.

34

Trainers must also reinforce prosocial behaviour & correct antisocial behaviour:

Reinforcement: Many antisocial individuals have received little encouragement, reinforcement or even recognition when they have evidenced prosocial attitudes or behaviour in the past.

It is much more likely that they have received reinforcement from their peers for their antisocial verbalizations and behaviours. The participants‟ antisocial verbalizations and actions may also have been far more likely to gain them the attention, albeit negative attention, of adults. In R&R2 programs, Trainers must reverse this process.

Specifically, Trainers should reinforce participants for their expression of prosocial sentiments or attitudes or values or behaviour.

This does not mean they they should 'lay it on thick' or 'go over the top' in their praise - that may turn the participant off and put the participant in a one-down position with the peer group. It does mean that they must make it clear that they noticed and approve of such expressions. If they do not, it is likely that they will seldom observe such expressions in the future.

Correction: It is equally important that Trainers correct antisocial expressions

or behaviours. Trainers should not simply ignore such responses. That does not mean that they should make a big issue of it because doing so may constitute reinforcement in the form of attention and stimulate reinforcement by other participants for opposing authority. It does mean that Trainers should indicate that they do not approve of such behaviour and Trainers should indicate their reason for disapproving. However, they must do this not with a big stick but with a quick 'jab' that makes the disapproval clear, but does not give the behaviour undue attention.

Correcting should be done in such a way as to complement the goals of training. For example, the Trainer might comment on how the participant could have used another, socially skilled way of expressing his/her point; or note that the behaviour does not seem to contribute to the group problem-solving activity, or suggest that he/she would be more likely to have his position accepted by choosing a alternative means of expressing his/her point of view.

The aim of correcting the participants' antisocial behaviour is not simply to reprimand, but to encourage them to engage in a cognitive process - to stimulate them to think again.

35

Reinforcing and Correcting Effort and Achievement: The Trainer must reinforce participants for both achievement and effort. It is not necessary for a participant to give a correct answer in an exercise in order to receive a congratulatory, supportive or encouraging comment from the trainer. We wish to encourage them to think; not require that they think perfectly. Although they cannot always give correct answers, they can and must be reinforced for trying or for raising interesting, important points or ideas.

Participants should not be criticized for producing poor ideas, but urged to produce better ones. However, the impression should not be created that just any answer will do, since participants would then feel the answers are really not important. Participants who give absurd answers or silly answers that indicate that they are not putting much serious effort into the session should be corrected.

Think Aloud: Trainers should model the thinking they wish the participants to

adopt by speaking their thoughts out loud when they are trying to solve a problem. Doing so enable the participants to „see‟ how problem-solving is accomplished.

RULES Trainers and/or the Trainer's agency must establish and communicate to each participant during the initial interview any major rules the Trainer or his agency have established for the program including how Trainers will respond to unexcused absences or failure to do assignments. Trainers must consider the number and content of the rules that they wish to establish before the program. For example, they may wish to establish a rule as to how racist, sexist, and other remarks or behaviours that demean other participants wil be dealt with. They may also wish to establish rules that participants are required to be willing to respect other participants, to be nonjudgemental of them, to respect others and to be wiling to accept feedback from others. Our view is that the number of rules should be kept to a minimum. We believe that most of such rules will be frequently broken by some participants and that imposing them at the beginning of the program is to invite failure with the result that the Trainers will find themselves being referees who spend much of their time handing out “yellow or red cards” and little of their time teaching prosocial behaviour. Moreover, we believe that some participants who at other times would engage in antisocial behaviours or verbalizations will not display them during the program but will refrain only because program rules forbid it. Consequently, the Trainer loses the opportunity to correct such antisocial behaviour during the program and, thereby, loses a valuable educational opportunity.

36

Problems do not go away just because we outlaw them! Moreover, in order to foster the conflict that is required for the development of cognitive, emotional and behavioural skills, the group atmosphere must be fast-paced, lively, argumentative, and emotional. Too many rules may limit the heated discussions that are essential to the learning process. Rules should not just be imposed by the Trainer or other adult authority figures in the agency - if they are, they will be opposed. Participants should be given the opportunity to propose rules that they believe are essential. We suggest that this be done not as a formal part of the first session but at any time that the need arises. We also suggest that rules should not be created before it is clear they are required. Our recommended approach can be illustrated by how we suggest Trainers respond to the inevitable tendency for everyone to speak at the same time or to fail to listen to other participants remarks (or the Trainer). When (not before) you find that the learning process is being impeded because too many participants are talking at the same time you should interrupt the proceedings to point out that it is difficult to hear all of what is being said because too many participants are talking at the same time. Then ask “if it would help if we set some rules so we can all be heard”. Most groups will agree and will suggest the following. If they do not – you can proceed as follows:

Ask them if it makes sense to make the following rules for the group: 1. only one person may talk at a time; 2. everyone must listen to the person who is talking. In this discussion it is important that the participants feel that they decided what rule should be established and that they all understand why the rule is required. Research has clearly established that explaining the reasoning for a rule is just as important as the rule itself for the individual‟s prosocial development. Confidentiality: Many programs impose a rule that matters discussed in the group must be confidential. Our experience tells us that such rules are bound to be broken either deliberately or accidentally. Such breaches are highly disruptive to the group process. Our view is that participants should be told the truth: that confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. MOTIVATION The R&R2 Short Version for Adults is designed for individuals who have developed patterns of anti-social behaviors which involve risk-taking and are counter to prosocial values. Engaging such individuals in the development of new and more pro-social competencies is a delicate and sensitive task. Trainers can expect many participants to display little motivation and much resistance to the Trainer's attempts to engage them in

37

the program. However, motivation is a key factor in the participant's progress. Throughout the development of R&R2, the authors paid considerable attention to means whereby the training procedures, techniques and materials would optimize the motivation of reluctant participants. Prochasta and DiClemente (e.g. 1982) have proposed a model of the change process which suggests that behaviour change should be thought of as a process involving a series of four stages: precontemplation, contemplation, action and maintenance. The R&R2 programs accord well with their model. Its major focus is the precontemplation and contemplation stage. Individuals in the precontemplation stage (probably most offenders) have not yet personally identified a need for change in their behaviour because they consider it unecessary or because they view their present behaviour as providing desired outcomes that far outweigh its negative consequences. The next stage is contemplation, where the individual becomes aware that a change may be desirable. The primary goal of the early sessions of the R&R program is to stimulate the offenders to realize and think about the fact that their approach to interpersonal problems determines their well-being and that there are alternative ways of thinking and behaving which would yield them fewer conflicts and more personal satisfaction in their interpersonal interactions. The skills which the program teaches and which they are required to practice helps them to take effective action to achieve change in their social adjustment (to put their commitment to change into action) and the reinforcement which their newly acquired skills yields them serves as a motivator to help them maintain their changed behaviour. Thus, the program is not just as a training program but a motivational program which stimulates offenders with low motivation to progress from the precontemplation phase to the contemplation phase and thereby makes them open to any program effort which has potential for helping them achieve and maintain changed behaviour. The authors were also guided by the research of William Miller and his colleagues whose model of "Motivational Interviewing" (MI) (e.g. MilleR&Rollnick, 1991) provides a theoretically sound and practically effective way to motivate resistant and ambivalent clients in the treatment of their addictions. Motivational Interviewing espouses five general principles that Trainers are urged to continually apply in dealing with the participant's ambivalence: 1. Avoid arguing with the participants

MI research indicates that use of argumentation or "heavy" confrontation simply causes most adolescents to feel attacked, to participate less fully in

38

the training, to resist the Trainer's advice, and to take a point of view in opposition to that of the Trainer. Confronting participants has also been shown to increase the rate of program dropout. Challenging them is much more likely to engage them.

Most antisocial individuals tend to rebel against authorities (including

Trainers) who try to foist information on them in vain efforts to change their behavior. Criticism is often fruitless and even counterproductive. Most of the individuals who are referred to R&R2 programs have already experienced enough criticism and reprimands from various adults and few have benefitted from them. Most have become inured to them or have learned ways of making adults frustrated or angry when they ignore (or twist) the adult's words.

In R&R2 programs, the participants should be arguing not with the

trainers, but with each other. The Trainer's role is to ensure that such arguing is not demeaning, but is respectful and constructive in exposing participants to views that may not jibe with their own. The goal is to encourage them to try to understand the differing views of others.

2. Express Empathy

Empathy involves understanding or seeing the world through the participant's eyes, thinking about things as the participant thinks about them, feeling things as the participant feels them - sharing in the participant's experiences.

The Trainer must model the empathy that they seek to instill in their

clients. When the participants feel that they are understood, they are more able to share their perceptions and feelings with others. Moreover, when they perceive empathy being expressed by the Trainer, they become more open to challenges by the Trainer about their values and their behaviours.

The Trainer's expression of empathy may also lead the participants to

become more comfortable in examining their ambivalence about change and less likely to deny their problems or blame others for them. The trainer's expression of accurate understanding of the client's experiences facilitates change. Empathy does not mean agreeing with the participants‟ impulsive, egocentric and anti-social actions. Agreement represents approval and reinforces such behaviour.

3. Support Self-Efficacy

Believing that change is possible is an important motivator in making a change in one's behaviour.

39

Trainers are urged to continually, but subtly remind participants not only that change to a prosocial life-style is desirable, but also that it is possible. They must make it clear that the participants are responsible for learning and practicing the pro-social cognitions, values and behaviors being taught in the program. They should also focus their efforts on helping the clients stay motivated, and supporting their sense of self-efficacy.

The Trainer‟s efforts in supporting self-efficacy can lead to their clients

developing learned optimism (Seligman, 1995) or a belief in their ability to cope. Such a belief can serve as a replacement of the learned helplessness and low self-esteem that underlies so much of the antisocial individual‟s bravado and recklessness.

4. Roll with Resistance - don't resist it

Effective Trainers do not fight client resistance, they "roll with it." In R&R2 programs, the participant's statements of resistance are not

criticized in a direct manner. Instead, the Trainer uses the adolescent's "momentum" to further explore their own beliefs and attitudes. Such an approach avoids reinforcing the participants by giving attention to their negative attitudes and rewarding them for being argumentative with the trainer. It also is much more likely than confrontation and criticism to decrease resistance and to promote the adolescent's involvement in the program.

Such an approach also tends to "take the wind out of their sails" and

prevents the participants from receiving reinforcement from their peers for oppositional behaviour because they observe that the trainer does not retaliate.

5. Develop Discrepancy

"Motivation for change occurs when people perceive a discrepancy between where they are and where they want to be" (Miller, Zweben, DiClemente, & Rychtarik, 1995, p. 8). The R&R2 Trainer seeks to develop that state by leading participants to examine the discrepancies between their current behavior and their future goals. When the participants come to realize that their current behaviors are not leading toward the goals they are pursuing, they become more motivated to change.

VICTIM STANCE Programs for offenders often have disappointing results because, with the best of intentions, they treat them as victims and emphasize their problems rather than their strengths. By focussing on the shortcomings of their environment or their history of victimization they may inadvertently increase their low self-efficacy, increase their

40

pessimism and reinforce their attempts to externalize the blame for their anti-social behavior and avoid taking responsibility for their actions. This does not mean that their behavior cannot be attributed to such factors. Such factors must be recognized and acknowledged both by the offender and the Trainer. In fact, by acquiring cognitive skills, the offenders may be better able to identify and understand how these past and current factors influence them. However, by focusing on them we may fail to reduce and, in fact, we may augment their influence. Moreover, treating offenders as victims can unintentionally feed their egocentricity. A primary goal of the R&R program is to combat egocentricity. It seeks to help offenders to decrease their self-centredness and increase their concern for others. A central assumption of the R&R2 programs, and one of the ways in which it differs from conventional offender treatment programs, is that little or no attempt is made to directly address the participants‟ personal problems. The discussions are centered not on identifying their problems and analyzing their causes and their effects but are much more ambitious – they teach them problem-solving skills that they can use to solve many of the problems they encounter. The emphasis is on what can be accomplished rather than on what is wrong. It moves people from problem talk, where the problem is all they see, to "solution talk" (cf. McConkey, 2003) PROSOCIAL ROLE-TAKING As much as possible, participants should be encouraged to identify with the program and to feel they have an important role to play in it. It is essential that each feels she/he is an active participant in training. One very effective way to increase the motivation of participants is to encourage and invite them to share in the training tasks. It is not necessary, for example, that Trainers lead all the discussions, or for that matter, all the sessions. There are enough tasks to be performed in the sessions that most participants can be assigned responsibility for some. Our emphasis on involving the offender participants as co-teachers is based not only on the adage that "the best way to learn anything is to teach it." It is based on three additional considerations:

Helper Therapy: An abundance of research indicates that offenders are more responsive to their peers than they are to staff and that engaging offenders as helpers or 'therapists' for their peers can yield major improvements in their pro-social behavior (Ross & McKay , 1979; Ross, Antonowicz & Dahliwall, 1995; Ross & Hilborn, 2008). Trainers in the R&R2 program are urged to help other participants. They are told from the beginning (Session 1) that they are going to be taught skills that will enable them not only to help themselves but to help others with their problems.

41

You Become The Role You Play: Research in social psychology indicates that individuals tend to attribute to themselves characteristics of the roles they play. Thus, when a program (or the system) places individuals in the "offender role" or the "patient role" or the "victim role" they often come to believe that the characteristics associated with those roles are enduring characteristics of themselves and then behave in accordance with their perception. However, if individuals can be persuaded to behave in ways in which they do not normally behave, they come to attribute to themselves the characteristics of people who usually behave in these ways. In the R&R program we encourage trainers to involve offenders in the group in "helper roles".

Neuroscience: Research in neuroscience that is reviewed in Rehabilitating Rehabilitation indicates that the development of neural connections can be fostered by both observation and activity. A goal of R&R2 programs is to foster what can be described as "prosocial neural connections" by exposing antisocial individuals to prosocial models and by engaging them in prosocial activities both in the group and beyond.

Participants are likely to get more out of their training if they are treated as helpers rather than helpees. Trainers should identify those whose performance during the program indicates that they have the skills, motivation and values that would enable them to be effective "Assistant Trainers" in subsequent program delivery. We also recommend, wherever practical, that arrangements be made to engage the participants in voluntary activities as service workers or helpers or teachers with individuals who may have problems even more severe than their own. They should be encouraged to use the problem-solving skills they have learned in the program while acting in these roles. Many, when placed in such roles come to see themselves in a very different light; they come to see themselves as prosocial rather than anti-social. Moreover, they often come to appreciate the value of pro-social behavior - they begin to recognize the rewards it can bring them. Finally, they can acquire and practice social skills that can serve as alternatives to their anti-social behavior7. SUMMARY Each session must close with a very brief summary that reminds participants of the nature and purpose of what was trained in the session and how it relates to the overall aim of training. In the initial sessions, the summary should be provided by the trainer. However, as training progresses, the participants may be asked to summarize as best they can the purpose and nature of what was discussed in the session.

7 It is our assumption that helping antisocial individuals to develop prosocial behaviour and to exercise such behaviour in working with those who may have more problems than they do themselves represents an approach that operationalizes the principles that restorative justice espouses.

42

ASSIGNMENTS The summary should always be followed by a reminder of the assignment for the session and how and why participants should practice the skill outside the group.

EVALUATION A brief evaluation should be conducted at the end of each session or following the session in terms of the following questions:

Did I achieve the goal of the session?

Were there any unusual difficulties?

What was the group atmosphere?

What should be done differently in the next session?

How could this particular session be improved?

Which examples or exercises were most effective?

INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT Trainers should also assess the performance of each participant in each session of the R&R2 Short Version for Adults by asking themselves:

How well did he/she participate?

How much did he/she appear to enjoy the session?

How much did she/he achieve in terms of understanding the content of the session, acquiring the cognitive skill and appreciating how the skill could be beneficially applied outside the group?

Did she/he evidence any of the cognitive skills that were taught in earlier sessions?

Did he/she consider the views of others?

Did she/he think of alternatives?

Was he/she able to understand the material?

Could he/she manage his/her emotions?

Could he/she perform the behavioural skill involved?

Did he/she evidence prosocial or antisocial attitudes, sentiments or values The answers to such questions can enable the Trainer to assess whether the individual participant should or should not be considered for additional training such as that provided in the original R&R program.

43

GRADUATION Trainers should conclude the program with a brief graduation ceremony of a kind that the agency deems most approriate. It should include a Trainer signed signed diploma.

PROGRAM SCHEDULE The following is the schedule for the sessions. Day 1 Skilled Thinking Feeling & Behaving Day 2 Managing Thoughts & Feelings (Part A) Day 3 Managing Thoughts & Feelings (Part. B) Day 4 Scanning for Information Day 5 Recognizing Thoughts & Feelings (their own & those of others) Day 6 Effective Listening and Empathy Day 7 Thinking of Solutions Day 8 Consequential Thinking Day 9 Evaluating the Thoughts of others Day 10 Evaluating Our Own Thoughts Day 11 Moral Emotions & Values Enhancement Day 12 Making Wise Choices Day 13 Negotiation Day 14 Desisting

FINAL NOTES The R&R program is not an elixir for anti-social behavior. Research clearly demonstrates that the program requires enthusiastic, trained staff with good cognitive and social skills who are working in an environment which is supportive of their program efforts and who maintain program integrity while they deliver the program to those offenders who are most likely to profit from it because they lack the skills and values that it teaches.

44

COGNITION IS NOT ENOUGH

An important finding of some research on R&R was that positive results were found only if cognitive skills training was combined with "social workers‟ intervention" which attended to the offenders' needs in such areas as family, housing and employment (Martin & Rodriguez, 1995). The research underscores a basic principle of the R&R program: cognition is not enough; effective rehabilitation requires multi-faceted programming. It is a gross over-simplification of the complexity and difficulty of correctional rehabilitation to assume that simply teaching cognitive skills to offenders will bring about their rehabilitation. Enhancing the cognitive development of an offender may be a worthwhile goal in its own right, but it is naive to assume that limiting intervention programs to cognitive training alone will be sufficient to prevent the persistence of delinquent or criminal behavior.

It has long been known that programs that provide only cognitive skills training may

yield improvements in cognitive functioning, but are likely to fail to influence social adjustment, institutional adjustment, or recidivism (Ross & Fabiano, 1985). Cognitive training may be an essential component of effective programs but, by itself, it is not sufficient. Research on the outcome of correctional treatment clearly demonstrates that programs will not be successful unless they are multi-faceted. Effective correctional programs do not rely on a single method. On the contrary, they employ a variety of techniques, appropriate to the complexity of criminal behavior. The offender's problems are not just cognitive. They are also emotional, behavioural and situational. To focus on one aspect of the offender to the exclusion of others is both unrealistic and misguided; but such an approach has been characteristic of much of the history of offender treatment.

The program should not be delivered in a coccon-like manner in which the other needs of the offender are ignored and the program is left on its own to do a job that requires the other facets of what Andrews refers to as “human service in a justice context”. For example, attention must be paid to the social/economic factors in the offender's behavior. It would be folly to think that a cognitive training program would be sufficient to yield the rehabilitation of an offender who lacks employment skills, who has no stable home environment, who has an alcohol or drug abuse problem...Concern for such non-cognitive factors must be part of an adequate program. For example, offenders who are experiencing psychiatric problems will require intervention beyond cognitive skills training. What is needed are “wrap-around” or multi-modal progams. Offenders are no less complex than the folks who develop programs for them.

45

ABOUT THE PROGRAM AUTHORS

ROBERT R. ROSS

Bob Ross (Ph.D. Psychology, University of Toronto) has been Lecturer, Wilfrid Laurier University; Associate Professor of Clinical Psychology, University of Waterloo; Research Associate, Human Justice Program, University of Regina; Honorary Research Associate, Faculty of Law, University of Edinburgh; and Professor of Criminology, University of Ottawa. Born and raised in Scotland, Dr. Ross is an international authority on offender rehabilitation and the prevention of antisocial behavior. He has had extensive experience as a Clinical Psychologist working with antisocial individuals, including drug-abusing offenders, sex offenders and violent offenders. He also served for twelve years as Chief Psychologist with the Ontario Government‟s Ministry of Correctional Services in Canada for juvenile and adult offenders. He has conducted research for the Ontario Ministry of Justice, the Solicitor General of Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada. A highly respected teacher and trainer, Dr. Ross has been a faculty member for the Ontario Department of Education's programs for special education teachers, and a Consultant to the Department of Educational Television. Dr. Ross has been conducting research on antisocial behaviour since the late 1960's. His research has been published in more than 100 articles in journals in psychology, criminology and education and in 20 books including Effective Correctional Treatment (1980); Treatment of The Alcohol Abusing Offender (1985); Time To Think: A Cognitive Model of Offender Rehabilitation & Delinquency Prevention (1985); Female Offenders: Correctional Afterthoughts (1986); Reasoning & Rehabilitation: A Handbook for Teaching Cognitive Skills (1986); El Pensamiento Prosocial (1990); Thinking Straight:The Reasoning & Rehabilitation Program (1995); Going Straight:Effective Programs for Delinquency Prevention & Offender Rehabilitation (1995); Cognitive & Personality Skills (in Arabic, 1996); El Programa Del Pensamiento Prosocial: Avances Recientes (2001); Antisocial Drivers: Prosocial Driver Training for Prevention and Rehabilitation (2005)(also in arabic); Rehabilitating Rehabilitation: Neurocriminology: Prevention and Treatment of Antisocial Behavior (2008,). Dr. Ross was awarded the Centennial Medal of Canada for his work with antisocial adolescents. The internationally renowned "Reasoning and Rehabilitation" program that Dr. Ross created in 1986 has been translated into twelve languages and delivered in seventeen countries by more than a thousand certified R&R Trainers to more than seventy thousand antisocial individuals: adult offenders (including mentally disordered offenders, violent offenders, sex offenders and substance abusing offenders); juvenile delinquents; behaviourally disordered adolescents; and "at risk" youths. The efficacy of the program has been demonstrated in many independent international evaluations. R&R program materials have been translated in nine languages including Arabic, Chinese, Estonian, German, Japanese, Danish, Spanish, and Swedish. Dr. Ross is the senior author of each of the new short, specialized R&R2 programs.

46

JAMES HILBORN

Jim Hilborn, MES in social planning with an emphasis on community design and social & organizational intervention (York University, Canada). He is a Canadian criminologist whose professional experience as a counsellor, program developer, evaluator and trainer in the criminal justice system in Canada spans more than thirty years. He is now based in Estonia where he is engaged in promoting evidence-informed policy and evidence-based practice in the Baltic Region of Europe. He is the Director of the Cognitive Centre of Estonia and the founder and Chair of the Baltic Crime Prevention Practitioners Association. He teaches courses in Estonia on cognitive-behavioral approaches to the treatment of antisocial behavior; community intervention; crime prevention; community policing; and evaluation of criminal justice programs. His recent projects include Harm Minimization in the Night-Time Economy: Reduction of the Opportunity for Alcohol Related Harm" (2006) for the Cheltenham CADA Partnership in the UK.; and A POP Guide on Crime and Disorder in Parks (2007) for the United States Centre for Problem Oriented Policing His recent review of the evidence for crime prevention approaches was published by the Estonian Ministry of Justice. He is a co-author with Dr. Ross of three program handbooks: Reasoning & Rehabilitation 2: Short Version for Youth (2003); Reasoning & Rehabilitation 2: Short Program for Families (2005); R&R2 Short Version for Adults (2005). He is also co-author with Dr. Ross of Rehabilitating Rehabilitation:Neurocriminology for Treatment of Antisocial Behaviour (2008).

PATRICK LIDDLE

Patrick Liddle (B.A. in Elementary Education and Special Education, George Washington University; M.Ed. in Special Education Supervision, Columbia Teachers College. He has worked as a learning disabilities teacher in the Connecticut public schools and as a learning disabilities teacher in Maryland public schools where he obtained considerable experience in educating children who had learning disabilities with emotional overlay. He has extensive experience with regards to parent involvement in children‟s education. Partick directed the Developmental Disabilities Program which involves providing group and individual therapy for men and women who have disabilities. He also has experience in evaluating the risk level and treatment needs of offenders and has served as an expert witness in court. Patrick is a Licensed Professional Counselor. Patrick is a clinical member of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers and has extensive experience as a therapist in conducting group treatment for men who have sexually assaulted children or adults as well as for men who have been abused. He is the Director of the Fidelity Program for the Center for the Treatment of Problem Sexual Behaviors and is responsible for overseeing the consistency of the treatment in this field that is provided across the state of Connecticut. His work entails working with treatment providers to ensure that they are using the established curriculum and Motivational Interviewing techniques. He also is responsible for ensuring that they receive the training that they need in order to stay current with the latest research on best practice. He has extensive experience in training staff in program delivery (including probation and parole officers) in several states in the U.S. Patrick is a certified member of the international network of Motivational Interviewing Trainers.

47

REFERENCES

Adey, P. S. & Shayer, M. (1994). Really Raising Standards. Routledge. Adey, P S, Shayer M, & Yates, C. (1995). Thinking Science: The Curriculum Materials Of The CASE Project, 2nd Edition.

Thomas Nelson and Son. Andrews, D.A & Kiessling, J.J.(1990). Program Structure & Effective correctional Practices: A summary of the Ca Vic

Research. In Ross, R R & Gendreau, (Eds.) Effective Correctional Treatment. Toronto: Butterworths. Antanowicz, D.H. & Ross, R R (1994) Essential Components of Successful Rehabilitation Programs For Offenders.

International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 38, 97-104. Antonowicz, D.H. (2005). The Reasoning and Rehabilitation Program: Outcome Evaluations with Offenders. In McMurran,

M & McGuire, J. (Eds.). Social Problem-solving and Offending. London: Wiley. Antonowicz, D. H., & Ross, R.R. (2005). Social Problem-Solving Deficits in Offenders. In McMurran, M & McGuire,

J.(Eds.). Social Problem-solving and Offending. London: Wiley Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., & Lieb, R. (2001). The comparative costs and benefits of programs to reduce crime.

Seattle: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Aos, S., Miller, M. & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What Does Not.

Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Barton, E.J. (1981). Developing sharing: An analysis of modeling other behavioral techniques. Behavior Modification, 5,

386-398. Beck, A, Freeman, A, & Associates (1990). Cognitive Therapy of Personality Disorders. New York: The Guilford Press.. Benson, H. & Klipper, M.l.(1975). The Relaxation Response. New York: William Morrow. Benson, H. & Struart, E.M (eds) (1992). The Wellness Book: The Comprehensive Guide to Maintaining Health and

Treating Stress-Related Illness. New York: Birch Lane Press. Blatner, A. & Wiener, D. J. (Eds,). (2007). Interactive and improvisational drama: Varieties of applied theatre and

performance. New York: iUniverse. Bodine, RJ. & Crawford, D.K. (1996). Conflict Resolution Education: A Guide to Implementing Programs in Schools,

Youth-Serving Organizations, and Community and Juvenile Justice Settings. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice

and U.S. Department of Education. Bodine, RJ. & Crawford, D.K. (1999) Developing Emotional Intelligence: A guide to Behaviour Management and Conflict

Resolution in Schools. Champaign: Research Press. Burns, D.O. (1989) The Feeling Good Handbook. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc. Calvin, W.H. (1998) Competing for Consciousness: A DarWinian Mechansim at an Appropriate Level of Explanation.

Journal of Conscious Studies, 5(4) 389-404. Cohen, D. (2001). Problem-Solving Partnerships: Including the Community for a Change. Community Oriented Policing

Services (COPS). Washington: U.S. Department of Justice. De Bono, E. (1992). Teach Your Child How to Think. London: Viking. De Bono, E. (1985). Six Thinking Hats. Toronto: Key Porter Books Limited. Denning, P. (2000). Practicing Harm Reduction Psychotherapy: An Alternative Approach to Addictions. New York: The

Guilford Press. Ellis, A. & Lange, A. (1994). How to Keep People From Pushing Your Buttons. New York: Birch Land Press Book. Eck, J. L. (1999). Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. Community

Oriented Policing Services (COPS). Washington: U.S. Department of Justice. Friendship, C., Blud, L., Erikson, M., & Travers, R. (2002). An Evaluation of Cognitive Behavioural Treatment for

Prisoners. London: Home Office, 2002. Gardenswartz, L & Rowe, A. (1994). The Diversity Tookit. Company. Garrido, V. R&R with Spanish Offenders and Children "At Risk". In R R Ross & RD. Ross, RD.(1995). Thinking Straight:

The Reasoning & Rehabilitation Program For Delinquency Prevention & Offender Rehabilitation. Ottawa: AIR

Training & Publications (cogcen@canada.com) Gendreau, P. & Ross, R. R. (1979). Effectiveness of correctional treatment: Bibliotherapy for cynics. Crime and

Delinquency, 25, 463-48. Gendreau, P. & Ross, R. R. (1987). Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s. Justice Quarterly, 4, 349-

408. Guerra, N.G. & Slaby, R.G.(1989). Evaluative factors in social problem solving by aggressive boys. Journal

of Abnormal Child Psychology , 17, 277-289. Haiidt, J. (2000). The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment,

Psychological Review. Haidt, J. (2000). The Moral Emotions. In Handbook of Affective Sciences, R J. Davidson, K. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith

(Eds.). Oxford University. Press.

48

Izzo, R L. & Ross, R R Meta-analysis of Rehabilitation Programs For Juvenile Delinquents: A Brief Report. Criminal Justice & Behaviour, 1990, 17, 134-142.

Kownacki, R. J. (1995). The effectiveness of a brief cognitive-behavioral program on the reduction of antisocial behavior in high-risk adult probationers in a Texas community. In Ross, R. R. & R. D. Ross (Eds.), Thinking straight: The reasoning and rehabilitation program for delinquency prevention and offender rehabilitation. Ottawa: Cognitive Centre of Canada, cogcen@canada.com

Landis, D. & Bhagat, RS (editors)(1996). Handbook of Intercultural Training, 2nd Edition. London: Sage Publications, Langer, E.J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Leahy, R.L. (2003). Cognitive Therapy Techniques: A practitioner’s Guide.New York: Guilford Press. Lopez.J., Garrido,V. & Ross, R.R. (2001). EI Programma Del Pensamiento Prosocial: Avances Recientes. Valencia:

Tirant 10 Blanch. Lockwood, D. (1997). Violence Among Middle School and High School Students: Analysis and Implications for

Intervention. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Justice. Louis, M.R. & Sutton, RL. (1991). Switching Cognitive Gears: From Habits of Mind to Active Thinking, Human Relations,

44 (1 ),55-76. McConkey, N. (1998). A brief solution-focused approach to solving school problems. Guidance & Counselling, 13, 19-22. Marlatt, G.A. (Ed.) (1998). Harm Reduction: Pragmatic Strategies for Managing High Risk Behaviors. New York: The

Guilford Press. Maruna, S. (2001). Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives. Washington ,D.C.: American

Psychological Association. Martin, AM. & Hernandez, B. (1995). PEIRS: Efficacy of a Multifacetted Cognitive Program for Prison Inmates. In RR

Ross, & RD. Ross, Thinking Straight: The Reasoning & Rehabilitation Program For Delinquency Prevention & Offender Rehabilitation. Ottawa: AIR Training & Publications.

Milburn, M. (2001). SARA and SMART Series of Crime Prevention Presentation in Tallinn, Estonia. Miller, R W. and Rollnick, S. (1991). Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People to Change Addicitve Behaviour. New

York: The Guilford Press. Miller, W. R. (1995). Motivational Enhancement Therapy with Drug Abusers. Albuquerque: Center on Alcoholism,

Substance Abuse, and Addictions (CASAA. Miller, W.R, Zweben, A., DiClemente, C.C., & Rychtarik, RG. (1995). Motivational Enhancement Therapy Manual: A

Clinical Research Guide for Therapists Treating Individuals with Alcohol Abuse and Dependence. Project MATCH Monograph Series, Vo1.2. NIH Pub. No. 94-3723. Rockville: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

Miller, W.R., (1999). Enhancing Motivation for Change in Substance Abuse Treatment, Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series 35. Rockville: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Moore, B.N. & Parker, R. (1998). Critical Thinking, Fifth Edition. Mountainview: Mayfield Publishing Company. Martin-Rodriguez, A.M. & Rodriguez-Rodriguez (1994).Socio-Cognitive Skills and Female Crime: A Study of

Institutionalized Women Offenders. Papers of the Fourth European Conference of Psychology and Law: 322-332.

Walter de Gruyter. Martinson, R. (Spring 1974). "What Works? - Questions and Answers About Prison Reform," The Public Interest, 22-54. Miller, W.R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change. 2

nd Edition. New York:

Guildford Press. Platt, J. J., Perry, G. M., & Metzger, D. S. (1980). The evaluation of a heroin addiction treatment program within a

correctional environment. In P. Gendreau & R. R. Ross (Eds.), Effective correctional treatment. Toronto: Butterworths.

Prochaska, J.O., Norcross, John C., and Diclemente, C.C. (!994). Changing for Good. New York: Avon Books:1994. Prochaska, J.O. & Norcross, J. C. (1999). Systems of Psychotherapy; A T ranstheoretical Analysis, Fourth Edition. New

York: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Reber, A.S. (1993). Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge: An Essay on the Cognitive Unconscious. Oxford Psychology

Series No. 19. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ross, R. R. & Gendreau, P. (Eds.)(1980). Effective Correctional Treatment. Toronto: Butterworths. Ross, R.R. (1980). Socio-Cognitive Development in the Offender. Ottawa: Ministry of The Solicitor General. Ross, R. R. (1981). The Educational Approach To The Rehabilitation of Offenders. Address to the National Meeting of

Correctional Services of Canada Educators, Ottawa. Ross, R. R. (1983). Treatment of Abnormal Behaviour Through Cognitive Intervention. Paper presented at the American

University of Beirut, Lebanon, March. Ross, R R. (1982). The Fourth "R" in Correctional Education: Reasoning & Rehabilitation. Brief to the Minister's Advisory

committee, Toronto, October. Ross, R. R. Reasoning & Rehabilitation: The Cognitive Model For Corrections. Correctional Options, ,4, 11-14. Ross, R.R. & Lightfoot, L. (1984). Treatment of the Alcohol Abusing Offender. Springfield, Illinois: C.C. Thomas

Publishers, 1985. Ross, R. R., Fabiano, E & Ewles, CD. (1988). Reasoning and Rehabilitation. International Journal of Offender Therapy

and comparative Criminology, , 32, 29-36.

49

Ross, R. & Fabiano, E. (1985). Time to think: A cognitive model of delinquency prevention and offender rehabilitation. Johnson City, TN: Institute of Social Sciences and Arts. cogcen@canada.com

Ross, R.R., Fabiano, E. & Ross, R.D. (1986). Reasoning & Rehabilitation: A Handbook for Teaching Cognitive Skills.

Ottawa: Cognitive Centre of Canada. cogcen@canada.com Ross, R.R. & Garrido, V. (1990). EI Pensamiento Prosocial. Valencia: University of Valencia (in Spanish). Ross, R.R. & Abdennur (1995). Cognitive & Personality Skills. Beirut: Center for Cognitive Development (in Arabic). Ross, R.R. & Antanowicz, D. (2004). Antisocial Driver: Prosocial Driving Training for Prevention & Rehabilitation.

Springfield Illinois: C.C. Thomas Publishers. Ross, R. R. & Gendreau, P. (Eds). (1980). Effective Correctional Treatment. Toronto: Butterworths. Ross, R. R. & McKay, H.B. (1979). Self-mutilation. D.C. Heath. Ross, R. R., Antonowicz, D. H. & Dhaliwal, G.K. (Editors).(1995). Going Straight: Effective Delinquency Prevention &

Offender Rehabilitation. Ottawa: Cognitive Centre of Canada. cogcen@canada.com Ross, R. R. & Hilborn, J. (2008). Rehabilitating Rehabilitation: Neurocriminology for Treatment of Antisocial Behaviour.

Ottawa: Cognitive Centre of Canada (cogcen@canada.com), Ross, R. R. & Ross, R. D. (Editors).(1995). Thinking Straight: The Reasoning and Rehabilitation Program for Delinquency

Prevention and Offender Rehabilitation. AIR Training & Publications. ogcen@canada.com Ross, R. R. & Ross, R.D. (1988). Cognitive skills: a training manual for living skills phase 1. Correctional Service of

Canada. Satcher, D, (2001). Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington. U.S. Public Health Service. Seligman, M.E.P.(1991). Learned Optimism. New York: Alfred A. Knof. Seligman, M.E.P., Reivich, K., Jaycox, L., Gillham, J. (1995). The Optimistic Child. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, Seligman.M. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive Psychology at the Millennium The American Psychologist. Shmeder,T, Perkins,M., Phillips, S., Rinehart, T & Townsend, M. (2002). Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing

Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving Partnerships, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). Washington: U.S. Department of Justice.

Shure, M.B. & Digeronimo, TF. (2000). Raising a Thinking Child Workbook: Teaching Young Children How to Resolve Everyday Conflicts and Get Along with Others. Champaign: Research Press.

Shure, M. B. (2001). I Can Problem Solve: An Interpersonal Cognitive Problem-Solving Program (Intermediate Elementary Grades, Second Edition). Champaign: Research Press.

Spivack, G. & Shure, M.B. (1974). Social Adjustment of Young Children: A Cognitive Approach to Solving Real-Life Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Spivack, G., Platt, J.J.; & Shure, M.B. (1976). The Problem-Solving Approach to Adjustment: A Guide to Research and Intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Sternberg, RJ. Images of Mindfulness, Journal of Social Issues, Spring, 2000. Plenum Publishing Corporation. Thornton, T.N.,Dahlberg, L.L., Lynch, B.S., & Baer, K. (2000). Best Practices of Youth Violence Prevention: A

Sourcebook for Community Action. Atlanta. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tong, L.S.J. & Farrington, D.P. (2006). How effective is the “Reasoning and Rehabilitation” program in reducing

reoffending? A meta-analysis of evaluations in four countries. Crime and Law, 12 (1), 3-24. Tong, L. S. J. & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Effectiveness of “Reasoning and Rehabilitation” in Reducing Reoffending.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University. Trotter, C. (2001). What Makes Workers Effective? In Sustaining Effectiveness in Working With Offenders. Cardiff: The

Cognitive Centre Foundation. Trotter, C. (2000). Focus On People - Effect Change. Cardiff: The Cognitive Centre Foundation. Van den Brink-Budge, R. (2000). Critical Thinking for Students. 3rd edition. How to Books.