Outcomes of Research Process
Operating hypothesis during user research
Initial hypothesis: People are failing to attend their court appearances or comply with supervision requirements because they forget them.
Revised hypothesis: Some people are indeed simply forgetting their appointments, but there are other myriad of social, emotional, financial, logistical, and institutional barriers that account for people failing to comply with their supervision.
This impacts the work with are doing to improve a client’s ability to communicate with their case manager by allowing us to understand a client’s willingness and ability to comply with the justice system and inform future automated communication that may help them successfully complete their time under supervision.
Rationale for the creation of archetypes
“Identifying archetypes – in the ageless symbols and defining character traits so vital in shaping the human psyche – makes it possible for researchers to investigate attitudes, beliefs, emotions and behaviours in ways that go far beyond traditional qualitative reports.” - David Kay, Research Dimensions
The notion of archetypes in the field of criminology was solidified by Terrie Moffitt’s dual taxonomy of offending behavior in her 1993 journal article “Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: a developmental taxonomy” (Psychological Review. 100(4):674-701, October 1993).
In “Scaling archetypal criminals,” Dr. Matt DeLisi designed a 7-item additive scale to analyze early prediction scales that have been designed in order to identify criminogenic behavior (American Journal of Criminal Justice, 26: 77–92. 2001.). The article identifies a tendency for the analyzes predictive models to over-predict criminality. Further, Dr. DeLisi cites Moffitt and “a sizable empirical literature” that “only about 5% of offenders demonstrate the pathological criminality.” Given this conclusion, it becomes critical to analyze and understand populations beyond a criminogenic binary - as current criminal justice methods employ. Rather, it is valid to identify and categorize population according to more holistic attributions.
Resulting archetypes
- Achievement Focused
- “This is the first time in a long time I’m doing good. I’m proud of myself.”
- Characteristics:
- Has positive social support, mild confidence about their success.
- May have a working understanding of the criminal justice process.
- May have multiple convictions in their past or need to move away from negative social ties.
- Lack Clarity and Support
- “I don’t even know when it was that’s how messed up I was. That’s how lost I was; everything is a blur.”
- Characteristics:
- Wants to make sure they are complying with their requirements.
- Negative social ties can influence their actions.
- May have to navigate multiple cases at the same time and needs reminders of what is required of them.
- May use drugs recreationally, and/or, have trauma in the past they are working through.
- Consequence Focused
- “I just got to stop hanging out with certain other people.”
- Characteristics:
- Are able to remember appointments and clear on what’s expected of them.
- Are afraid of failing supervision requirements.
- Most likely are in their early 20’s with some family support.
- Negative social ties can influence their actions.
- Stable
- “Everything just hit my family at once. This is something I just want to move past.”
- Characteristics:
- Generally have their personal life (finances, social ties, family) in order and wants to put their charge behind them.
- Most likely supervision fees are difficult for them to pay.
- Angry
- “I’m going to fight all those charges. I’m not causing no trouble.”
- Characteristics:
- Blames their circumstances as being targeted by law enforcement.
- Feels their charges are unfair.
- Most likely are unmotivated to change.