[PPT] - Criminogenic Risk and Mental Health: What Works and What Doesnt in PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Criminogenic Risk and Mental Health: What Works and What Doesn’t in Reducing Recidivism

Presented by: Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D. School of Criminal Justice University of Cincinnati www.uc.edu/criminaljustice Edward.Latessa@uc.edu

SLIDE 2

Evidence Based – What does it mean?

There are different forms of evidence:

– The lowest form is anecdotal evidence; stories, opinions, testimonials, case studies, etc - but it often makes us feel good – The highest form is empirical evidence – research, data, results from controlled studies, etc. - but sometimes it doesn’t make us feel good

SLIDE 3

Evidence Based Practice is:

1.Easier to think of as Evidence Based Decision Making

2. Involves several steps and encourages the use
f validated tools and treatments.
3. Not just about the tools you have but also how

you use them

SLIDE 4

Evidence Based Decision Making Requires

1.Assessment information 2.Relevant research 3.Available programming 4.Evaluation 5.Professionalism and knowledge from staff

SLIDE 5

What does the Research tell us?

There is often a Misapplication of Research: “XXX Study Says”

the problem is if you believe every study we

wouldn’t eat anything (but we would drink a lot of red wine!)

Looking at one study can be a mistake
Need to examine a body of research
So, what does the body of knowledge about

correctional interventions tell us?

SLIDE 6

First, it is important to understand the body

f knowledge on risk factors

What are the risk factors correlated with criminal conduct?

SLIDE 7

Major Set of Risk/Need Factors

1. Antisocial/procriminal attitudes,

values, beliefs and cognitive- emotional states

SLIDE 8

Cognitive Emotional States

Rage
Anger
Defiance
Criminal Identity

SLIDE 9

Identifying Procriminal Attitudes, Values & Beliefs What to listen for:

Negative expression about the law
Negative expression about conventional institutions, values,

rules, & procedures; including authority

Negative expressions about self-management of behavior;

including problem solving ability

Negative attitudes toward self and one’s ability to achieve

through conventional means

Lack of empathy and sensitivity toward others

Procriminal sentiments are what people think, not how people think; they comprise the content of thought, not the skills of thinking.

SLIDE 10

Neutralization & Minimizations

Neutralization Techniques include:

Denial of Responsibility: Criminal acts are due to factors beyond

the control of the individual, thus, the individual is guilt free to act.

Denial of Injury: Admits responsibility for the act, but minimizes

the extent of harm or denies any harm

Denial of the Victim: Reverses the role of offender & victim &

blames the victim

“System Bashing”: Those who disapprove of the offender’s acts

are defined as immoral, hypocritical, or criminal themselves.

Appeal to Higher Loyalties: “Live by a different code” – the

demands of larger society are sacrificed for the demands of more immediate loyalties.

(Sykes and Maltz, 1957)

Offenders often neutralize their behavior. Neutralizations are a set of verbalizations which function to say that in particular situations, it is “OK” to violate the law

SLIDE 11

Major set Risk/needs continued:

2. Procriminal associates and

isolation from prosocial others

SLIDE 12

Major set Risk/Needs continued:

3. Temperamental & anti social

personality pattern conducive to criminal activity including:

– Weak Socialization – Impulsivity – Adventurous – Pleasure seeking – Restless Aggressive – Egocentrism – Below Average Verbal intelligence – A Taste For Risk – Weak Problem-Solving/lack of Coping & Self-Regulation Skills

SLIDE 13

Major set of Risk/Need factors continued:

4. A history of antisocial behavior:

– Evident from a young age – In a variety of settings – Involving a number and variety of different acts

SLIDE 14

Major set of Risk/Needs Continued:

5. Family factors that include criminality

and a variety of psychological problems in the family of origin including:

– Low levels of affection, caring and cohesiveness – Poor parental supervision and discipline practices – Out right neglect and abuse

SLIDE 15

Major set of Risk/Needs continued:

6. Low levels of personal

educational, vocational or financial achievement

SLIDE 16

Leisure and/or recreation

7. Low levels of involvement in

prosocial leisure activities

–Allows for interaction with antisocial peers –Allows for offenders to have idle time –Offenders replace prosocial behavior with antisocial behavior

SLIDE 17

Substance Abuse

8. Abuse of alcohol and/or drugs

–It is illegal itself (drugs) –Engages with antisocial others –Impacts social skills

SLIDE 18

Recent study by Bucklen and Zajac

f parole violators in Pennsylvania

found a number of criminogenic factors related to failure*

*Conducted by Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections

SLIDE 19

Pennsylvania Parole Study Social Network and Living Arrangements Violators Were:

More likely to hang around with individuals

with criminal backgrounds

Less likely to live with a spouse
Less likely to be in a stable supportive

relationship

Less likely to identify someone in their life

who served in a mentoring capacity

SLIDE 20

Pennsylvania Parole Study Employment & Financial Situation Violators were:

Only slightly more likely to report having difficulty getting a

job

Less likely to have job stability
Less likely to be satisfied with employment
Less likely to take low end jobs and work up
More likely to have negative attitudes toward employment

& unrealistic job expectations

Less likely to have a bank account
More likely to report that they were “barely making it” (yet

success group reported over double median debt)

SLIDE 21

Pennsylvania Parole Study Alcohol or Drug Use Violators were:

More likely to report use of alcohol or

drugs while on parole (but no difference in prior assessment of dependency problem)

Poor management of stress was a primary

contributing factor to relapse

SLIDE 22

Pennsylvania Parole Study Life on Parole - Violators were:

Had poor problem solving or coping skills
Did not anticipate long term consequences of behavior
Failed to utilize resources to help themselves
Acted impulsively to immediate situations
Felt they were not in control
More likely to maintain anti-social attitudes
Viewed violations as an acceptable option to situation
Maintained general lack of empathy
Shifted blame or denied responsibility
Had unrealistic expectations about what life would be like
utside of prison

SLIDE 23

Pennsylvania Parole Violator Study:

Successes and failures did not differ in

difficulty in finding a place to live after release

Successes & failures equally likely to

report eventually obtaining a job

SLIDE 24

So what about Mental Health?

SLIDE 25

Mentally Disordered Offenders (MDOs)

Conventional Clinical Wisdom:

Criminal activities of MDOs best explained by

psychopathological models

Assessments typically focus on psychiatric

diagnoses, psychiatric symptomatology, and personal distress (i.e. anxiety, depression)

Assessments are often costly and time consuming

SLIDE 26

MDOs Continued

Review of the Empirical Research:

The Psychopathological model has little relevance regarding the

prediction of MDO criminal behavior

Gendreau conducted meta-analysis on studies of psychiatric

symptomatology and general recidivism: Correlation=ZERO

Bonta’s meta analysis found correlation between having a

diagnosed mental disorder, mood disorder, or psychosis and general/violent recidivism ranged from r = .01 to -.17.

Criminogenic risk factors were the strongest predictors (r=.23)

SLIDE 27

Major Set of Risk/Need Factors

1. Antisocial/procriminal attitudes, values, beliefs & cognitive emotional states 2. Procriminal associates & isolation from anti-criminal

thers

3. Temperamental & anti-social personality patterns conducive to criminal activity:

4. A history of antisocial behavior

SLIDE 28

Major Set of Risk/Need Factors Cont.

5. Familial factors that include criminality and a variety of psychological problems in the family of

rigin

6. Low levels of personal, educational, vocational,

r financial achievement

7. Low levels of involvement in prosocial leisure activities 8. Substance Abuse

SLIDE 29

A Large Body of Research Has Indicated….

….that correctional services and interventions can be effective in reducing recidivism for offenders, however, not all programs are equally effective

The most effective programs are based on some principles of

effective interventions

Risk (Who)
Need (What)
Treatment (How)
Program Integrity (How Well)

SLIDE 30

Let’s Look at the Risk Principle Risk refers to risk of reoffending and not the seriousness of the offense.

SLIDE 31

Risk Principle

As a general rule treatment effects are stronger if we target higher risk offenders, and harm can be done to low risk offenders

SLIDE 32

Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community Supervision Sample

9.1 34.3 58.9 69.2 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk Very High Risk

Percent with New Arrest Low 0-14 Medium = 15-23 High = 24-33 Very High 34+

SLIDE 33

There are Three Elements to the Risk Principle

1. Target those offenders with higher

probability of recidivism

2. Provide most intensive treatment to

higher risk offenders

3. Intensive treatment for lower risk offender

can increase recidivism

SLIDE 34

#1: Targeting Higher Risk Offenders

It is important to understand that even with

EBP there will be failures.

Even if you reduce recidivism rates you

will still have high percentage of failures

SLIDE 35

Example of Targeting Higher Risk Offenders

If you have 100 High risk offenders

about 60% will fail

If you put them in well designed EBP for

sufficient duration you may reduce failure rate to 40%

If you have 100 low risk offenders about

10% will fail

If you put them in same program failure

rate will be 20%

SLIDE 36

Targeting Higher Risk Offenders continued:

In the end, who had the lower recidivism

rate?

Mistake we make is comparing high risk

to low risk rather than look for treatment effects

SLIDE 37

The question is: What does more “intensive” treatment mean in practice?

Most studies show that the longer

someone is in treatment the great the effects, however:

Effects tend to diminish if treatment goes

too long

SLIDE 38

The question is: What does more “intensive” treatment mean in practice?

Most studies show that the longer

someone is in treatment the great the effects, however:

Effects tend to diminish if treatment goes

too long

SLIDE 39

Provide Most Intensive Interventions to Higher Risk Offenders

Higher risk offenders will require much

higher dosage of treatment

– Rule of thumb: 100 hours for moderate risk – 200+ hours for high risk – 100 hours for high risk will have little effect – Does not include work/school and other activities that are not directly addressing criminogenic risk factors

SLIDE 40

Results from a 2010 Study (Latessa, Sperber, and Makarios) of 689 offenders

100-bed secure residential facility for adult male felons
Cognitive-behavioral treatment modality
Average age 33
60% single, never married
43% less than high school education
80% moderate risk or higher
88% have probability of substance abuse per SASSI

SLIDE 41

SLIDE 42

Findings & Conclusions

We saw large decreases in recidivism when dosage

levels go from 100 to 200 hours for high risk offenders--- 81% to 57%.

The results are not as strong for moderate risk
ffenders
Supports previous research including the risk principle
Indicates that we cannot have “one size” fits all

programs

SLIDE 43

Placing lower risk offenders in intensive programs can increase recidivism

SLIDE 44

Recent Study of Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision in Canada 10 20 30 40 50 60 High Risk 31.6 51.1 Low Risk 32.3 14.5 Treatment Non-Treatment

Bonta, J et al., 2000. A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program.,

Vol. 27 No 3:312-329. Criminal Justice and Behavior

Recidivism Rates

SLIDE 45

2002 STUDY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS IN OHIO

Largest study of community based correctional

treatment facilities ever done up to that time.

Total of 13,221 offenders – 37 Halfway Houses and 15

Community Based Correctional Facilities (CBCFs) were included in the study.

Two-year follow-up conducted on all offenders
Recidivism measures included new arrests &

incarceration in a state penal institution

SLIDE 46

Increased Recidivism

Reduced Recidivism

SLIDE 47

Treatment Effects For High Risk Offenders

34
18
15 -14
6
5
2
2

2 3 3 3 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 10 12 12 12 13 13 13 15 21 22 24 25 27 30 32 34 R i v e r C i t y F r e s h S t a r t A l t e r n a t i v e A g e n c y T a l b e r t H

u

s e C

r

n e r s t

n

e C

m

m u n i t y A s s e s s m e n t P r

g

r a m ( M e n ’ s ) M

n

d a y W O R T H C i n c i n n a t i V O A M c M a h

n

H a l l T a l b e r t H

u

s e S p r i n g G r

v

e N E O C A P O r i a n a H

u

s e R I P A l v i s H

u

s e D u n n i n g H a l l L

r

a i n / M e d i n a A l l C B C F F a c i l i t i e s C a n t

n

C

m

m u n i t y T r e a t m e n t C e n t e r L u c a s C

u

n t y S R C C C A l l F a c i l i t i e s L i c k i n g / M u s k i n g u m S u m m i t C

u

n t y B u t l e r S E P T A C

m

m u n i t y T r a n s i t i

n

s F r a n k l i n C

u

n t y S m a l l P r

g

r a m s O r i a n a H

u

s e T M R C C i n c i n n a t i V O A C h e m i c a l D e p e n d e n c y P r

g

r a m A l v i s H

u

s e A l u m C r e e k T a l b e r t H

u

s e B e e k m a n C

m

p D r u g H a r b

r

L i g h t S a l v a t i

n

A r m y C

m

m u n i t y C

r

r e c t i

n

s A s s

c

i a t i

n

T

l

e d

V

O A M a h

n

i n g C

u

n t y E O C C 10 20 30 40

10
20
30
40

Probability of R eincarceration

SLIDE 48

2010 STUDY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS IN OHIO

Over 20,000 offenders – 44 Halfway Houses and 20

Community Based Correctional Facilities (CBCFs) were included in the study.

Two-year follow-up conducted on all offenders

SLIDE 49

Treatment Effects for Low Risk

60
50
40
30
20
10

10 20 30 40 50 60

Harbor Light--D/A CompDrug MONDAY Oriana RIP Oriana CCTC West Central CATS male RTP TH Turtle Creek Cinti VOA SOT AH Alum Creek Harbor Light--Corr Alternatives Franklin STARK WORTH CTCC Canton NEOCAP Oriana TMRC TH Springrove Oriana Summit Pathfinder Oriana Cliff Skeen ALL CBCF FACILITIES EOCC Female ALL HWH FACILITIES Lorain-Medina Mahoning Oriana Crossweah River City STAR Talbert House CCC Booth H/Salv A CCA RTC I CCA RTC II Cinti VOA D/A Comm Trans Ctr Crossroads Diversified Fresh Start SOS TH Pathways AH Dunning ARCA Oriana RCC Licking-Muskingum CATS female RTP Mansfield VOA SEPTA TH Cornerstone EOCC Male Lucas AH Price AH Veterans Dayton VOA Small Programs Toledo VOA Northwest CCC TH Beekman CATS male TC

% Difference in Rate of New Felony Conviction

SLIDE 50

Treatment Effects for High Risk

60
50
40
30
20
10

10 20 30 40 50 60

AH Veterans TH Beekman MONDAY CTCC Canton TH Springrove Northwest CCC WORTH Diversified Oriana CCTC Oriana Summit Oriana Crossweah ARCA Booth H/Salv A CATS male RTP Crossroads Franklin Comm Trans Ctr STARK River City Talbert House CCC West Central EOCC Male ALL CBCF FACILITIES CompDrug AH Dunning Alternatives CCA RTC II Small Programs Harbor Light--D/A ALL HWH FACILITIES Oriana TMRC CATS male TC Fresh Start Dayton VOA NEOCAP Harbor Light--Corr Oriana RIP Licking-Muskingum Mahoning Cinti VOA D/A Oriana RCC STAR SOS Lucas CATS female RTP AH Price TH Turtle Creek Lorain-Medina Pathfinder Toledo VOA EOCC Female Oriana Cliff Skeen SEPTA AH Alum Creek Mansfield VOA TH Cornerstone CCA RTC I

% Difference in Rate of New Felony Conviction

SLIDE 51

Need Principle

By assessing and targeting criminogenic needs for change, agencies can reduce the probability of recidivism

Criminogenic

Anti social attitudes
Anti social friends
Substance abuse
Lack of empathy
Impulsive behavior

Non-Criminogenic

Anxiety
Low self esteem
Creative abilities
Medical needs
Physical conditioning

SLIDE 52

Targeting Criminogenic Need: Results from Meta- Analyses

0.05

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 Target 1-3 more non- criminogenic needs Target at least 4-6 more criminogenic needs

Reduction in Recidivism Increase in Recidivism

Source: Gendreau, P., French, S.A., and A.Taylor (2002). What Works (What Doesn’t Work) Revised 2002. Invited Submission to the International Community Corrections Association Monograph Series Project

SLIDE 53

Criminal Thinking and Mental Illness*

Morgan, Fisher and Wolff (2010) studied 414 adult offenders with mental illness (265 males, 149 females) and found:

66% had belief systems supportive of criminal life style (based on

Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Scale (PICTS)

When compare to other offender samples, male offenders with MI

scored similar or higher than non-mentally disordered offenders.

On Criminal Sentiments Scale-Revised, 85 % of men and 72 % of

women with MI had antisocial attitudes, values and beliefs – which was higher than incarcerated sample without MI.

Center for Behavioral Health Services Criminal Justice Research Policy Brief, April 2010. Rutgers University.

SLIDE 54

Conclusion

Criminal Thinking styles differentiate people who

commit crimes from those who do not independent of mental illness

Incarcerated persons with mental illness are
ften mentally ill and criminal
Needs to be treated as co-occurring problems

SLIDE 55

The Christopher Columbus Style

f Program Design

WHEN HE SET OUT… He didn’t know where he was going. WHEN HE GOT THERE… He didn’t know where he was. WHEN HE GOT BACK… He didn’t know where he had been.

SLIDE 56

Definitely NOT Criminogenic Needs

SLIDE 57

SLIDE 58

SLIDE 59

SLIDE 60

SLIDE 61

SLIDE 62

DOGSLEDDING AS RESTORATIVE JUSTICE METHOD –

London Free Press – 07/03/11 The Hollow Water First Nation, who live 200 km northeast of Winnipeg, have used dogsledding as a restorative justice program, which tries to restore relationships between victims and perpetrators in criminal cases. Exercising wilderness skills was seen as a way of rebuilding the perpetrator’s self-esteem, explained Marcel HARDESTY, restorative justice program director.

SLIDE 63

Assessment is the engine that drives effective correctional programs

Need to meet the risk and need principle
Reduces bias
Aids decision making
Allows you to target dynamic risk factors

and measure change

SLIDE 64

To understand assessment

ne needs to consider types of risk

factors

SLIDE 65

Dynamic and Static Factors

Static Factors are those factors that are

related to risk and do not change. Some examples might be number of prior

ffenses, whether an offender has ever

had a drug/alcohol problem.

Dynamic factors relate to risk and can
change. Some examples are whether an
ffender is currently unemployed or

currently has a drug/alcohol problem.

SLIDE 66

According to the American Heart Association, there are a number of risk factors that increase your chances of a first heart attack

 Family history of heart attacks  Gender (males)  Age (over 50)  Inactive lifestyle  Over weight  High blood pressure  Smoking  High Cholesterol level

SLIDE 67

There are two types of dynamic risk factors

Acute – Can change quickly
Stable – Take longer to change

SLIDE 68

In addition to Risk factor it is important to Assess Responsivity Factors

Often neglected
Can be useful in assigning offenders to

programs and groups

Addressing responsivity factors can

improve treatment effectiveness

SLIDE 69

The Responsivity Principle

General

– Most offenders respond to programs that are based on cognitive behavioral/social learning theories

Specific

– Offenders learn differently and have certain barriers that should be addressed so that they are more likely to succeed in programs

SLIDE 70

Specific Responsivity

What gets in the way of offenders benefiting from treatment?

– Must take individual learning styles into account – Must consider possible barriers to interventions – Assessment of responsivity is important to maximize benefits of treatment

SLIDE 71

Responsivity areas to assess can include

Motivation to change
Anxiety/psychopathy
Levels of psychological development
Maturity
Cognitive functioning
Mental disorders

SLIDE 72

Prioritizing Interventions: What to Change and Why

Criminogenic targets – reduce risk for

recidivism

Non-criminogenic targets – may reduce

barriers but NOT risk

SLIDE 73

List three speeches that have changed

your life

SLIDE 74

List three people who have changed your

life

SLIDE 75

Treatment Principle

The most effective interventions are behavioral:

Focus on current factors that influence

behavior

Action oriented
Staff follow “core correctional practices”

SLIDE 76

Results from Meta Analysis: Behavioral vs. NonBehavioral

0.07 0.29 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 Nonbehavioral (N=83) Behavioral (N=41)

Reduced Recidivism Andrews, D.A. 1994. An Overview of Treatment Effectiveness. Research and Clinical Principles, Department of Psychology, Carleton University. The N refers to the number of studies.

SLIDE 77

Most Effective Behavioral Models

Structured social learning where new skills

and behaviors are modeled

Family based approaches that train family
n appropriate techniques
Cognitive behavioral approaches that

target criminogenic risk factors

SLIDE 78

Social Learning Refers to several processes through which individuals acquire attitudes, behavior, or knowledge from the persons around them. Both modeling and instrumental conditioning appear to play a role in such learning

SLIDE 79

Family Based Interventions

Designed to train family on behavioral

approaches

– Functional Family Therapy – Multi-Systemic Therapy – Teaching Family Model – Common Sense Parenting – Strengthening Families Program (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention)

SLIDE 80

Effectiveness of Family Based Intervention: Results from Meta Analysis

38 primary studies with 53 effect tests
Average reduction in recidivism= 21%

However, much variability was present (-0.17 - +0.83)

Dowden & Andrews, 2003

SLIDE 81

Mean Effect Sizes: Whether or not the family intervention adheres to the principles

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 Risk Need Treatment Yes No

SLIDE 82

The Four Principles of Cognitive Intervention

1. Thinking affects behavior 2. Antisocial, distorted, unproductive irrational thinking can lead to antisocial and unproductive behavior 3. Thinking can be influenced 4. We can change how we feel and behave by changing what we think

SLIDE 83

Recent Meta-Analysis of Cognitive Behavioral Treatment for Offenders by Landenberger & Lipsey (2005)*

Reviewed 58 studies:

19 random samples 23 matched samples 16 convenience samples

Found that on average CBT reduced recidivism by 25%,

but the most effective configurations found more than 50% reductions

SLIDE 84

Significant Findings (effects were stronger if):

Sessions per week (2 or more) - RISK
Implementation monitored - FIDELITY
Staff trained on CBT - FIDELITY
Higher proportion of treatment completers -

RESPONSIVITY

Higher risk offenders - RISK
Higher if CBT is combined with other services -

NEED

SLIDE 85

Reducing Prison & Jail Misconducts

Findings from a 2006 meta analysis of 68

studies involving 21,467 offenders

Outcomes included violent misconduct,

nonviolent misconduct, and institutional adjustment

Sample included 73% male, 8% female &

19% coed.

Included both adult and juvenile samples

SLIDE 86

Average Effect Size for Misconducts by Treatment Type

From: French, S, & Gendreau P.. (2006). Reducing Prison Misconducts What Work!. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 33 (2); 185-218.

0.26 0.1 0.02 0.02

Behavioral Non-behavioral Educational/Vocational Unspecified

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

Average Effect Size Type of Treatment

SLIDE 87

Average Effect Size for Misconducts by Number of Criminogenic Needs Targeted

From: French, S, & Gendreau P.. (2006). Reducing Prison Misconducts What Work!. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 33 (2); 185-218.

0.29 0.16 0.06

3 to 8 1-2

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

A v e r a g e E f f e c t S i z e

SLIDE 88

Average Effect Size for Misconducts by Program Quality

From: French, S, & Gendreau P.. (2006). Reducing Prison Misconducts What Work!. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 33 (2); 185-218.

0.38 0.2 0.13

HIgh Moderate Low

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Average Effect Size Program Qualtiy

SLIDE 89

Average Effect Size for Misconduct Reductions and Recidivism

From: French, S, & Gendreau P.. (2006). Reducing Prison Misconducts What Work!. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 33 (2); 185-218.

0.13

0.05

High Misconduct Reductions Low Misconduct Reductions

0.05 0.1 0.15

0.05

R e d u c e d R e c i d i v i s m Increased R ecidivism

SLIDE 90

Cognitive-Behavioral

Cognitive Theories Social Learning Theory WHAT to change HOW to change it What

ffenders

think How

ffenders

think Model Practice Reward

SLIDE 91

These approaches help us….

Structure our interventions
Teach and model new skills
Allow offender to practice with graduated

difficulty

Reinforce the behavior

SLIDE 92

What Doesn’t Work with Offenders?

SLIDE 93

Lakota tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. However, in corrections, we

ften try other strategies, including the following:
Buy a stronger whip
Change riders
Say things like “This is the way we always have ridden this horse.”
Appoint a committee to study the horse.
Arrange to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.
Create a training session to increase our riding ability.
Harness several dead horses together for increased speed.
Declare that “No horse is too dead to beat.”
Provide additional funding to increase the horse’s performance.
Declare the horse is “better, faster, and cheaper” dead.
Study alternative uses for dead horses.
Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.

SLIDE 94

Ineffective Approaches with Offenders

Programs that cannot maintain fidelity
Programs that target non-criminogenic needs
Drug prevention classes focused on fear and other emotional appeals
Shaming offenders
Drug education programs
Non-directive, client centered approaches
Bibliotherapy
Freudian approaches
Talking cures
Self-Help programs
Vague unstructured rehabilitation programs
Medical model
Fostering self-regard (self-esteem)
“Punishing smarter” (boot camps, scared straight, etc.)

SLIDE 95

Fidelity Principle

Making sure the program is delivered as designed and with integrity:

Ensure staff are modeling appropriate behavior, are qualified, well

trained, well supervision, etc.

Make sure barriers are addressed but target criminogenic needs
Make sure appropriate dosage of treatment is provided
Monitor delivery of programs & activities, etc.
Reassess offenders in meeting target behaviors

SLIDE 96

Some Lessons Learned from the Research

Who you put in a program is important – pay

attention to risk

What you target is important – pay attention to

criminogenic needs

How you target offender for change is important –

use behavioral approaches

Program Integrity makes a difference - Service