What Works and What Doesnt in Reducing Recidivism: The Principles of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SLIDE 1

What Works and What Doesn’t in Reducing Recidivism: The Principles of Effective Intervention

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

SLIDE 2

Purpose of Criminal Sanctions

• Retribution: punishment is justified simply because a person

has broken the law

• General Deterrence: sanction deters potential offenders by

inflicting suffering on actual ones

• Specific Deterrence: sanction is applied to stop to offender

from reoffending again

• Restoration: crime control lies primarily in the community,

and victims should be central to the process of restoration

• Incapacitation: limits offender’s ability to commit another

crime

• Rehabilitation: change in behavior of the offender produced by

treatment and services. Offender chooses to refrain from new crimes rather than being unable to.

SLIDE 3

Deterrence Theory

An Exercise in Social Psychology

Aware of the sanction Perceive it as unpleasant Weigh the cost and benefits Assess the risk Make a rational choice

SLIDE 4

BUT…Most Street Level Offenders

Impulsive

Short term perspective Disorganized Failed in school, jobs, etc. Distorted thinking Hang around with others like themselves Use drugs & alcohol Not rational actors

In short:

• Deterrence theory collapses

SLIDE 5

Incapacitation

• Stronger with some type of offenders

(i.e. bank robbers--virtually no effect with drug dealers or users)

• High cost for relatively low pay off
• Effects are more short term

SLIDE 6

Evidence Based – What does it mean?

There are different forms of evidence:

– The lowest form is anecdotal evidence; stories,

• pinions, testimonials, case studies, etc - but it
• ften 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 7

Evidence Based Practice is:

• 1. Easier to think of as Evidence Based Decision

Making

• 2. Involves several steps and encourages the use of

validated tools and treatments.

• 3. Not just about the tools you have but also how you

use them

SLIDE 8

Evidence Based Decision Making Requires

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

SLIDE 9

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 10

FROM THE EARLIEST REVIEWS:

• Not a single reviewer of studies of the effects of
• fficial punishment alone (custody, mandatory

arrests, increased surveillance, etc.) has found consistent evidence of reduced recidivism.

• At least 40% and up to 60% of the studies of

correctional treatment services reported reduced recidivism rates relative to various comparison conditions, in every published review.

SLIDE 11

Results from Meta Analysis: Criminal Sanctions versus Treatment

• 0.1
• 0.05

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

• 0.07

0.15

Reduced Recidivism Increased Recidivism

CS -.07 (Number of Studies=30) Treatment .15 (Number of

Studies=124)

Mean Phi

SLIDE 12

People Who Appear to be Resistant to Punishment

• Psychopathic risk takers
• Those under the influence of a substance
• Those with a history of being punished

SLIDE 13

Most researchers who study correctional interventions have concluded:

• Without some form of human intervention
• r services there is unlikely to be much

effect on recidivism from punishment alone

• The evidence also indicates that while

treatment is more effective in reducing recidivism than punishment – Not all treatment programs are equally effective

SLIDE 14

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 15

Meta-Analysis of Treatment for Females

by Dowden and Andrews

0.02 0.03 0.17 0.36 0.03 0.1 0.18 0.34

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 Inappropriate Weak Promising Behavioral

Mostly Female Only Female Dowden, C., and D. Andrews (1999). What Works for Female Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Review. Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 45 No. 4. Average Effect Sizes

SLIDE 16

Another important body of knowledge to understand is the research on risk factors What are the risk factors correlated with criminal conduct?

SLIDE 17

Major Set of Risk/Need Factors

• 1. Antisocial/procriminal attitudes,

values, beliefs and cognitive- emotional states

SLIDE 18

Cognitive Emotional States

• Rage
• Anger
• Defiance
• Criminal Identity

SLIDE 19

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 20

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 21

Major set Risk/needs continued:

• 2. Procriminal associates and isolation

from prosocial others

SLIDE 22

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 23

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 24

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 25

Major set of Risk/Needs continued:

• 6. Low levels of personal educational,

vocational or financial achievement

SLIDE 26

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 27

Substance Abuse

• 8. Abuse of alcohol and/or drugs

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

SLIDE 28

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
• n 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

• ffenders.
• On Criminal Sentiments Scale-Revised, 85 % of men and 72 %
• f 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 29

Conclusion

• Criminal Thinking styles differentiate people who

commit crimes from those who do not independent of mental illness

• Incarcerated persons with mental illness are both

mentally ill and criminal

• Needs to be treated as co-occurring problems

SLIDE 30

Recent study of parole violators in Pennsylvania found a number of criminogenic factors related to failure*

*Conducted by Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections

SLIDE 31

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 32

Pennsylvania Parole Study Employment & Financial Situation Violators were:

• 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 33

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 34

Pennsylvania Parole Study Life on Parole Violators were:

• Had unrealistic expectations about what life would be

like outside of prison

• 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

SLIDE 35

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 36

Major Risk and/or Need Factor and Promising Intermediate Targets for Reduced Recidivism

Factor Risk Dynamic Need History of Antisocial Early & continued Build noncriminal Behavior involvement in a number alternative behaviors antisocial acts in risky situations Antisocial personality Adventurous, pleasure Build problem-solving, self- seeking, weak self management, anger mgt & control, restlessly aggressive coping skills Antisocial cognition Attitudes, values, beliefs Reduce antisocial cognition, & rationalizations recognize risky thinking & supportive of crime, feelings, build up alternative cognitive emotional states less risky thinking & feelings

• f anger, resentment, &

Adopt a reform and/or defiance anticriminal identity Antisocial associates Close association with Reduce association w/ criminals & relative isolation criminals, enhance from prosocial people association w/ prosocial people

Adopted from Andrews, D.A. et al, (2006). The Recent Past and Near Future of Risk and/or Need Assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52 (1).

SLIDE 37

Major Risk and/or Need Factor and Promising Intermediate Targets for Reduced Recidivism

Factor Risk Dynamic Need Family and/or marital Two key elements are Reduce conflict, build nurturance and/or caring positive relationships, better monitoring and/or communication, enhance supervision monitoring & supervision School and/or work Low levels of performance Enhance performance, & satisfaction rewards, & satisfaction Leisure and/or recreation Low levels of involvement Enhancement involvement & satisfaction in anti- & satisfaction in prosocial criminal leisure activities activities Substance Abuse Abuse of alcohol and/or Reduce SA, reduce the drugs personal & interpersonal supports for SA behavior, enhance alternatives to SA

Adopted from Andrews, D.A. et al, (2006). The Recent Past and Near Future of Risk and/or Need Assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52 (1).

SLIDE 38

This research has led to the identification of some principles

SLIDE 39

Principles of Effective Intervention

• Risk Principle – target higher risk offenders (WHO)
• Need Principle – target criminogenic risk/need factors

(WHAT)

• Treatment Principle – use behavioral approaches (HOW)
• Fidelity Principle – implement program as designed (HOW

WELL)

SLIDE 40

Let’s Start with the Risk Principle Risk refers to risk of reoffending and not the seriousness of the offense. You can be a low risk felon or a high risk felon, a low risk misdemeanant

• r a high risk misdemeanant.

SLIDE 41

Example of Risk Levels by Recidivism for a Community Supervision Sample

9.1 34.3 58.9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

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

SLIDE 42

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 43

#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 44

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 45

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 46

#2: 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 47

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

• 100-bed secure residential facility for adult male

felons

• Prison diversion program
• Average length of stay = 4 months
• 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 48

SLIDE 49

Findings

• 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 offenders

SLIDE 50

Conclusions

• Supports previous research including the

risk principle

• Indicates that we cannot have ―one size‖

fits all programs

SLIDE 51

#3: Intensive Treatment for Low Risk Offenders will Often Increase Failure Rates

• Low risk offenders will learn anti social

behavior from higher risk

• Disrupts prosocial networks

SLIDE 52

The Risk Principle & Correctional Intervention Results from Meta Analysis

• 4

19

• 5

5 10 15 20 25 High Risk Low Risk Change In Recidivism Rates

Dowden & Andrews, 1999

Reduced Recidivism Increased Recidivism

SLIDE 53

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 54

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

• We also examined program characteristics

SLIDE 55

Increased Recidivism Reduced Recidivism

SLIDE 56

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 Reincarceration

SLIDE 57

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 58

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 59

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 60

Average Difference in Recidivism by Risk for Halfway House Offenders

Low risk ↑ recidivism by 3% Moderate risk ↓ recidivism by 6% High risk ↓ recidivism by 14%

SLIDE 61

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 62

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 63

Some so called ―theories‖ we have come across

• ―Been there done that theory‖
• ―Offenders lack creativity theory‖
• ―Offenders need to get back to nature theory‖
• ―Offenders lack discipline theory‖
• ―Offenders lack organizational skills theory‖
• ―Offenders have low self-esteem theory‖
• ―Offenders need to change their diet theory‖
• ―Treat them as babies & dress them in diapers theory‖
• ―We just want them to be happy theory‖
• ―Offenders (females) need to learn to put on makeup & dress better theory‖
• ―Male offenders need to get in touch with their feminine side theory‖

SLIDE 64

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 65

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 66

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 offenses, whether an

• ffender has ever had a drug/alcohol problem.
• Dynamic factors relate to risk and can change.

Some examples are whether an offender is currently unemployed or currently has a drug/alcohol problem.

SLIDE 67

Dynamic Risk Factors and Their Importance

• Also called criminogenic needs
• Changing these factors changes the probability of

recidivism

• Provide the basis for developing a treatment plan
• Address factors that will reduce risk
• Lead to public safety

SLIDE 68

There are two types of dynamic risk factors

• Acute – Can change quickly
• Stable – Take longer to change

SLIDE 69

Some Examples of Offender Risk Assessment Tools

• Level of Service Inventory (LSI)
• COMPAS
• PCL
• Wisconsin Risk Needs
• Ohio Risk Assessment System

SLIDE 70

One New Non-Proprietary System is the ORAS

• The Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS)

consists of 5 instruments:

• 1. Pretrial
• 2. Community Supervision
• 3. Screener
• 4. Prison Intake
• 5. Reentry

SLIDE 71

Community Supervision Risk Assessment Tool (ORAS-CST)

SLIDE 72

Final Domains on the ORAS-CST

1. Criminal /Supervision History (6 items) 2. Education, Employment and Finances(6 items) 3. Family and Social Support (5 items) 4. Neighborhood Problems (2 items) 5. Substance Use (5 items) 6. Peer Associations (4 items) 7. Criminal Attitudes and Behavioral Problems (7 items)

SLIDE 73

The ORAS-Final Summary

SLIDE 74

The ORAS-Substance Abuse and MH Domain

SLIDE 75

The ORAS-Criminal Attitudes and Behavior Patterns

SLIDE 76

Treatment Principle

The most effective interventions are behavioral:

• Focus on current factors that influence behavior
• Action oriented
• Offender behavior is appropriately reinforced

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 – 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

Reasons that CBT is Popular in Corrections

• Can be done in any setting
• Existing staff can be trained on CBT
• Relatively cheap to deliver
• Wide range of curriculums are available

SLIDE 84

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 85

Factors Not significant:

• Setting - prison (generally closer to end of

sentence) versus community

• Juvenile versus adult
• Minorities or females
• Brand name of the curriclum

SLIDE 86

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 87

Evaluation of Thinking for a Change

Lowenkamp and Latessa (2006)

• Probation +T4C vs. Probation
• 136 Treatment cases
• 97 Comparison cases
• Variable follow up (range 6 to 64 months;

average 26)

• Outcome—arrest for new criminal behavior

SLIDE 88

Multivariate Model

• Controlled for

– Risk (prior arrests, prior prison, prior community supervision violations, history of drug use, history of alcohol problems, highest grade completed, employment status at arrest) – Age – Sex – Race – Time at risk or length of follow up time

SLIDE 89

Adjusted Recidivism Rates Comparing T4C Participants to Comparison Group

18 23 35 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Probation + T4C Successful Participants Only (90) Probation + T4C (121) All Participants Probation (96) Group Membership Adjusted Recidivism Rate

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

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1:10 1:08 1:06 1:04 1:02 2:01 4:01 6:01 8:01 10:01 Probability of ISP Success Ratio of Rewards to Punishments Ratio of Rewards to Punishments and Probability of Success on Intensive Supervision

Widahl, E. J., Garland, B. Culhane, S. E., and McCarty, W.P. (2011). Utilizing Behavioral Interventions to Improve Supervision Outcomes in Community-Based Corrections. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38 (4).

SLIDE 92

List of Rewards and Sanctions

Sanctions

• Verbal reprimand
• Written assignment
• Modify curfew hours
• Community service hours
• Restrict visitation
• Program extension or

regression

• Electronic Monitoring
• Inpatient or outpatient txt
• Detention time

Rewards

• Verbal praise and

reinforcement

• Remove from EM
• Level advancement
• Increased personal time
• Approved special activity
• Fees reduced
• Approve of extend special

visitation

Widahl, E. J., Garland, B. Culhane, S. E., and McCarty, W.P. (2011). Utilizing Behavioral Interventions to Improve Supervision Outcomes in Community-Based Corrections. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38 (4).

SLIDE 93

Current we are testing a new model for Case Managers and POs called EPICS

Effective Practices for Correctional Supervision

• Most has been done with POs
• Recently trained Caseworkers

SLIDE 94

• Target higher risk offenders
• Translate the results of assessments
• Supervise/intervene
• Target criminogenic needs
• Provide evidence-based interventions
• Provide graduated incentives and consequences

Rationale for EPICS Training

INTEGRATING EPICS AND CASE MANAGEMENT

SLIDE 95

96

Case Management

PRIORITIZING INTERVENTIONS

• Criminogenic targets = reduce risk
• Non-criminogenic targets = reduce

barriers...but NOT risk

SLIDE 96

97

Structure of EPICS Meeting

SESSION OVERVIEW

• Each session should be structured in the

following way:

• 1. Check-In
• 2. Review
• 3. Intervention
• 4. Homework

SLIDE 97

98

Rationale for EPICS

Preliminary Data from Canada:

Trained officers had 12% higher retention rates in

comparison with untrained officers at six months.

Also found reductions in recidivism

SLIDE 98

Two year Recidivism Results from Canadian Study

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Reconviction Treatment Control

Bont, et al, (2010) The Strategic Training Initiative in Community Suopervision: Risk-Need-Responsivity in the Real World. Public Safety Canada.

SLIDE 99

Findings from Federal Probation Sample

Robinson, Vanbenschoten, Alexander, and Lowenkamp, Forthcoming, Federal Probation, Sept. 2011.

SLIDE 100

These approaches help us….

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

difficulty

• Reinforce the behavior

SLIDE 101

Elements of Effective Correctional Practice and Recidivism

Source: Gendreau, P. (2003). Invited Address, Div ision 18, APA Annual Conv ention, Toronto, CA. Relationship Skills Structuring Skills Effective Reinforcement Effective Modeling Effective Disapproval Structuring Skill Learning Problem Solving Effective Authority

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 No Yes

Effect Size

SLIDE 102

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 103

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

A v e r a g e E f f e c t S i z e Ty pe of Treatment

SLIDE 104

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

Average Effect Size

SLIDE 105

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

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

SLIDE 106

Average Effect Size for Misconducts by Other Moderators

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

0.2 0.27 0.33 0.05 0.28 0.15 0.15

Adults Juveniles Txt kept separate Not Separate Txt greater 6 mths 3-5 mths Less 3 months

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Average Effect Size

SLIDE 107

What Doesn’t Work with Offenders?

SLIDE 108

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

• ther affairs, we often 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 109

Ineffective Approaches

• Programs that cannot maintain fidelity
• Programs that do not target 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 110

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
• Track offender recidivism
• Have an evaluator working with the program

SLIDE 111

Program Integrity and Recidivism

• Several major study we have done has

found a strong relationship between program integrity and recidivism

• Higher the progam’s integrity score –

greater the reductions in recidivism

SLIDE 112

Program Integrity—Relationship Between Program Integrity Score And Treatment Effect for Community Supervision Programs

• 0.15

0.02 0.12 0.16

• 0.15
• 0.1
• 0.05

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 r-value 0-19% 20-39% 40-59% 60+% Program Percentage Score Reduced Recidivism Increased Recidivism

SLIDE 113

Program Integrity—Relationship Between Program Integrity Score And Treatment Effect for Residential Programs

22 10

• 19

5

• 20
• 15
• 10
• 5

5 10 15 20 25 Change In Recidivism Rates

0-30 31-59 60-69 70+

Reduced Recidivism Increased Recidivism

SLIDE 114

Effect of Program Integrity on Recidivism: Results from Meta Analysis

Andrews and Dowden 1999

22 23 33 28 20 22 45 5 7 7 12 10 9 8

Specific Model Trained Workers Supervised Workers Printed Manuals Monitor Change Adequate Dosage Involved Researcher

10 20 30 40 50

Percent Change in Recidivism

SLIDE 115

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

SLIDE 116

Important Considerations

Offender assessment is the engine that drives effective programs helps you know who & what to target Design programs around empirical research helps you know how to target offenders Program Integrity make a difference Service delivery, disruption of criminal networks, training/supervision of staff, support for program, QA, evaluation