Offender Recidivism Consulting Group Training Objectives - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
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
Missouri Juvenile Justice Association 2017 Spring Conference
Andrew Cummings, M.A. Advanced Outcomes Consulting Group
❖ Understanding the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR)
❖ Introduction to “What Works” Research Findings ❖ Review of Practice Enhancement Recommendations
❖ Risk Principle - WHO do we target for services ❖ Need Principle - WHAT factors do we address ❖ Responsivity Principle - HOW to deliver services
❖ 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
❖ Actuarial assessments can predict future recidivism by taking certain risk
factors into account
❖ 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
❖ Antisocial Personality ❖ Antisocial Attitudes & Cognitions ❖ Antisocial History* ❖ Social Supports for Crime (Peers) ❖ Addiction to Criminogenic Drugs ❖ Substance Abuse ❖ Family/Marital Factors ❖ Lack of Achievement School/Work ❖ Lack of Pro-Social Activities
Non-Criminogenic Needs
Distress
Stress
❖ Antisocial Personality ❖ Antisocial Attitudes & Cognitions ❖ Antisocial History* ❖ Social Supports for Crime (Peers) ❖ Addiction to Criminogenic Drugs ❖ Substance Abuse ❖ Family/Marital Factors ❖ Lack of Achievement School/Work ❖ Lack of Pro-Social Activities
❖ Stresses the importance of providing appropriate
❖ Presumes that our best intentions don’t unwittingly
❖ 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
❖ 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)
❖ 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
❖ 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%)
❖ 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?
❖ 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
sanctions
❖ The system also includes a needs assessment for
identifying the underlying psychosocial needs of youth
❖ Very solid foundation to build upon
❖ 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
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?
❖ “A juvenile offender recidivist is any youth, referred to
❖ 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
❖ How does that sit with you?
❖
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)
❖ Could we reduce re-arrest by providing responsive
❖ What are the ethical concerns and unintended
❖ Do we have the appropriate services? ❖ What do the RNR principles indicate?
❖ What Works Checklist ❖ Practice Toolbox
❖ Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) ❖ Therapeutic Philosophy ❖ Appropriate Dosage ❖ Cognitive Behavioral Treatment (CBT) ❖ Model Fidelity/Quality Controls ❖ Rewards and Consequences
❖ Programming exclusively focused on discipline and
❖ Therapeutic philosophy emphasizing personal
❖ Higher-risk youth require a higher amount and intensity
❖ There should be a direct, positive relationship
❖ To a point (!) ❖ The question is “who” is your local dosage set-up to
❖ Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) consistently outperforms
mentoring, etc.)
❖ Overall, a 26% reduction from baseline (50%) in meta-
analysis of 548 studies (Lipsey et al., 2010)
❖ CBT, until proven otherwise, should be considered critical
Responsivity element with offenders
❖ Examples, Thinking for a Change (T4C), Aggression
Replacement Therapy (ART), Functional Family Therapy (FFT), and Multisystemic Therapy (MST)
❖ It matters less that a curriculum is a brand name than it being
delivered in the way that it was intended by the developer
❖ Quality Controls MATTER! ❖ Staff certified and trained on rapport techniques and
cognitive interaction skills (26% recidivism reduction; Labrecque & Smith, 2015)
❖ Coaching and facilitation support (21%) ❖ Programming delivered in a structured, dosage-controlled
manner – as designed
❖ Ongoing contact with developer or evaluator
❖ Even the best services should be combined with appropriate
incentives and graduated sanctions to ensure participation
❖ Fair, consistent, and timely ❖ The best incentives and sanctions matrices should
promote the principles of honesty, effort, and accountability
❖ Optimal incentives/sanction ratio of 4:1 (Wodahl, 2011) ❖ Consider programming and treatment ratings around core
learning objectives and competencies
❖ Name the masters-level professional license or
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
❖ Core Clinical and Addiction Counseling Competencies
❖ But Criminal Justice Reform assumes that there is a
❖ ASSUMPTION CHECK: True or False?
❖ Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) ❖ Therapeutic Philosophy ❖ Appropriate Dosage ❖ Cognitive Behavioral Treatment (CBT) ❖ Model Fidelity/Quality Controls ❖ Rewards and Consequences
Q: Whose responsibility is it to ensure adherence to evidence-based practices? A: YOURS
❖ Actuarial Risk-Needs Assessment Tool ❖ Used as a repeated measure (!) ❖ Structured Decision-Making Placement Matrix revisited ❖ Treatment and Case Management Ratings ❖ Bi-Weekly scaled down to Monthly, progress permitting ❖ Curricula scripts and progress reports tied to youths’ skill
development
❖ If you don’t hear your kids talking about and applying skills,
they aren’t learning any (!)
❖ Programming Contracts with provisions for Model Fidelity/Quality
Controls
❖ Shared auditing records and coaching feedback ❖ An Incentives/Sanctions Matrix ❖ Brief staffings with Probation, Providers, and Youth at
meaningful, short-term milestones (30 days?)
❖ Regular trainings and coaching for ALL parties (judicial,
probation, treatment) on Cognitive Interaction Skills
❖ Ongoing internal and external auditing/evaluation related to
evidence-based practices and toolbox
❖
Cost Model:
❖
Medicaid and Third Party Reimbursements and many juvenile justice grants do not necessarily cover the attendant costs in delivering evidence-based services
❖
MOU’s/Contracts should anticipate a direct and indirect cost associated with enhanced outcomes
❖
Providers are encouraged to review the What Works Checklist and make specific provisions in their MOU’s/Contracts for:
❖
Staff certification and training
❖
Staff retention and service continuity
❖
Model fidelity and auditing
❖
Curriculum booster sessions and individual support
❖
Risk-Need Assessment and treatment planning
❖ Working with Youth Offenders is not business as usual ❖ We have a choice between maximizing (40-50%
❖ Treatment services are the main driver of outcomes-
❖ If we are going to effectively resource treatment, then
❖ Andrew Cummings, Executive Director, Advanced
❖ acummings@aocg.org