Missouri Juvenile Justice Association 2017 Spring Conference Reducing Youth Andrew Cummings, M.A. Advanced Outcomes Offender Recidivism Consulting Group
Training Objectives ❖ Understanding the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model ❖ Introduction to “What Works” Research Findings ❖ Review of Practice Enhancement Recommendations
Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR): Putting on Muscle ❖ Risk Principle - WHO do we target for services ❖ Need Principle - WHAT factors do we address ❖ Responsivity Principle - HOW to deliver services
Risk Principle ❖ Individual with higher criminogenic risk should be prioritized for treatment and receive more intensive supervision than those with lower criminogenic risk ❖ Significant risk of future recidivism ❖ Services should be provided to those assessed as having a elevated probability of recidivism ❖ Conventionally means “high risk” youth given limited resources, but where does that start? ❖ Treatment, supervision and other services must be appropriate given level of risk ❖ Actuarial assessments can predict future recidivism by taking certain risk factors into account
Need Principle ❖ A youth offender ’s criminogenic needs should be targeted for intervention in order to reduce recidivism and prevent future criminal conduct ❖ Factors to be addressed are those tied to recidivism. In doing so, reductions in future recidivism is greatest ❖ Risk factors are characteristics that contribute to recidivism. They can be static or dynamic ❖ Static - Factors that can’t be changed ❖ Dynamic - Factors we can change ❖ Criminogenic (crime producing) needs are risk factors that are statistically related recidivism and are dynamic
Criminogenic Needs ❖ Antisocial Personality Non-Criminogenic Needs ❖ Antisocial Attitudes & Cognitions • Vague Feelings of Personal ❖ Antisocial History* Distress • Poor Self-Esteem ❖ Social Supports for Crime (Peers) • Feelings of Alienation/Exclusion ❖ Addiction to Criminogenic Drugs • Lack of Physical Activity • History of Victimization ❖ Substance Abuse • Hallucinations, Anxiety and Stress ❖ Family/Marital Factors • Disorganized Communities • Lack of Ambition ❖ Lack of Achievement School/Work ❖ Lack of Pro-Social Activities
Criminogenic Needs ❖ Antisocial Personality ❖ Antisocial Attitudes & Cognitions ❖ Antisocial History* ❖ Social Supports for Crime (Peers) Recidivism ❖ Addiction to Criminogenic Drugs Reduction ❖ Substance Abuse > 40%(!) ❖ Family/Marital Factors ❖ Lack of Achievement School/Work ❖ Lack of Pro-Social Activities
Responsivity Principle ❖ Stresses the importance of providing appropriate supervision, clinically-responsive treatment dosage (your programming), and attending to individual characteristics (education, MH factors, motivation, trauma, etc.) ❖ Presumes that our best intentions don’t unwittingly make them worse through poor services or association with higher risk youth.
Risk-Need-Responsivity ❖ The recidivism curve can be driven-down by 30 to 40% for moderate to high-risk youth offenders, but only when services adhere to RNR principles (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Genreau, Smith, & French, 2006; Lipsey et al., 2010: Lipsey, Landenberger, Wilson, 2007) ❖ Non-adherence to RNR principles in service delivery has not only been found to be ineffective, but detrimental to offender outcomes (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Baglivio et al., 2015) ❖ Recidivism increased for low and high-risk youth alike when supervision/treatment services are NOT aligned with risk-level ❖ Too much intervention for low-risk youth may increase their risk
Risk-Need-Responsivity ❖ Programming that maintains fidelity to “risk principle” may reduce recidivism by 12- to 40% (Baglivio et al., 2015; Lipsey, Cothern, 2000; Lipsey 2009) ❖ Programming focusing on youths’ “criminogenic needs” may reduce recidivism by as much as 40% (Lipsey, Wilson, Cothern, 2000) ❖ Programming that adheres to the “responsivity principle” with behavioral and cognitive behavioral treatment consistently perform best (Skeem et al., 2015)
Risk-Need-Responsivity ❖ According to RNR research, participant risk/need increases the need for more intensive contingency management and controls increases ❖ A few axioms from RNR research apply ❖ The higher the risk, the more intensive the supervision and contingencies ❖ The higher the need, the more intensive the treatment (dosage) ❖ TRY to avoid mixing risk and need levels. ❖ Make informed decisions
Putting Missouri in Perspective ❖ Missouri Juvenile and Family Division, Annual Report (2015) ❖ 19419 offenses in 2015 ❖ Eighty-two percent [15,852] of law violation referrals were disposed through the informal court process. The remaining 18% required formal court intervention [3,403] ❖ The most frequently used method of disposing law violation referrals was Informal Adjustment with Supervision (22%), followed by Informal Adjustment without Supervision (19%)
Putting Missouri in Perspective ❖ Missouri Juvenile and Family Division, Annual Report (2015) ❖ Twenty-one percent [2,141] of the 10,161 juvenile law offenders in CY14 recidivated through a new law violation within one year of the disposition date of their initial referral ❖ That’s AWESOME! Enviable. Things look solid ❖ Sixteen percent [1,602] of the 10,161 juvenile law offenders in CY14 recidivated either with a new Class A misdemeanor or felony offense within one year of the disposition date of their initial referral ❖ According to the Missouri Statewide Juvenile Court Report (2009) nearly 41 percent of recidivating juvenile offenders re-offended within the first three months of their initial offense disposition date ❖ What did we miss?
Putting Missouri in Perspective ❖ The Missouri Juvenile Offender Classification System (2005) ❖ Empirically validated risk assessment for estimating a youthful offender’s relative likelihood of future delinquency and a classification matrix which links the level of risk and offense severity to a recommended set of graduated sanctions ❖ The system also includes a needs assessment for identifying the underlying psychosocial needs of youth ❖ Very solid foundation to build upon
Putting Missouri in Perspective ❖ Missouri Juvenile and Family Division, Annual Report (2015) ❖ The majority of youth [64%, 10,255] assessed “scored” at moderate risk for future delinquent acts on risk assessments in CY15. The remaining youth scored at low [23%, 3,673] or high risk levels [13%, 1,998] ❖ Validation data suggest that we can expect moderate risk youth to recidivate at a 30% rate; low at 14%; and high at 43% ❖ So 77% of cohort had a 30% or better chance of being back with a new charge ❖ And yet we returned a 21% recidivism rate at one year out. How?
Putting Missouri in Perspective ❖ “A juvenile offender recidivist is any youth, referred to the juvenile office for a legally sufficient law violation during a calendar year, who receives one or more legally sufficient law violation(s) to the juvenile or adult court within one year of the initial referral’ s disposition date.”
Putting Missouri in Perspective ❖ The question is how well we aligned with RNR principles? ❖ We seem to be doing a great job of quickly and decisively diverting most kids out of the system ❖ But are we missing an opportunity to reduce recidivism further? ❖ As the majority of our kids are moderate risk (64%) that means that one in three will be re-arrested with one year. One year … ❖ How does that sit with you?
Putting Missouri in Perspective Missouri Statewide Juvenile Court Report (2009) ❖ Youth offenders with a history of “One or More Prior Referrals” to the juvenile ❖ court had nearly twice the odds to recidivate (1.94) as those with no prior history with the juvenile system Moderate to severe “Substance Abuse” increased the odds of recidivating ❖ (1.41) “One or More Assault Referrals” significantly increased the odds of ❖ recidivating (1.26) “Below Average or Failing” school performance significantly increased odds of ❖ recidivating versus those who passed without difficulty (1.20) “Strong negative peer influence” and “Lack of Positive Social Support” ❖ increased offenders’ estimated odds of recidivating (1.20 and 1.16)
Putting Missouri in Perspective ❖ Could we reduce re-arrest by providing responsive services for moderate risk youth with these factors? ❖ What are the ethical concerns and unintended consequences? ❖ Do we have the appropriate services? ❖ What do the RNR principles indicate?
Forward: Putting Muscle to Use ❖ What Works Checklist ❖ Practice Toolbox
What Works Checklist ❖ Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) ❖ Therapeutic Philosophy ❖ Appropriate Dosage ❖ Cognitive Behavioral Treatment (CBT) ❖ Model Fidelity/Quality Controls ❖ Rewards and Consequences
Programming Philosophy ❖ Programming exclusively focused on discipline and supervision tend to have negative effects (Lipsey et al., 2010) ❖ Therapeutic philosophy emphasizing personal development and skills return the best rearrest outcomes
Dosage ❖ Higher-risk youth require a higher amount and intensity of supervision/treatment services ❖ There should be a direct, positive relationship between risk and dosage and supervision ❖ To a point (!) ❖ The question is “who” is your local dosage set -up to succeed with (moderate, high risk/needs)? RNR revisited
Recommend
More recommend
