Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

What Works and What Doesn’t in Reducing Recidivism: Applying the Principles of Effective Intervention in Ohio Presented by: Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D. Center.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "What Works and What Doesn’t in Reducing Recidivism: Applying the Principles of Effective Intervention in Ohio Presented by: Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D. Center."— Presentation transcript:

1 What Works and What Doesn’t in Reducing Recidivism: Applying the Principles of Effective Intervention in Ohio Presented by: Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D. Center for Criminal Justice Research School of Criminal Justice University of Cincinnati

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.

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

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

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

6 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

7 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

8 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

9 How To Digest This Information 1.Think in terms of own agency 2.Think in terms of outside agencies 3.Think in terms of a system perspective

10 Evidence Based Decision Making Requires 1.Assessment information 2.Relevant research 3.Available programming 4.Evaluation 5.Professionalism and knowledge from staff

11 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?

12 A Large Body of Research Has Indicated…. ….that correctional services and interventions can be effective in reducing recidivism for offenders, however, not all programs and interventions are equally effective The most effective approaches are based on some principles of effective interventions Risk (Who) Need (What) Treatment (How) Program Integrity (How Well)

13 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 or a high risk misdemeanant.

14 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

15 #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

16 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%

17 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

18 #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 higher risk –100 hours for high risk will have little if any effect –Does not include work/school and other activities that are not directly addressing criminogenic risk factors

19 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

20 Study of Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision in Canada Bonta, J et al., A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program., Vol. 27 No 3: Criminal Justice and Behavior Recidivism Rates

21 2002 STUDY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS IN OHIO Largest study of community based correctional treatment facilities ever done 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

22 Determination of Risk Each offender was given a risk score based on 14 items that predicted outcome. This allowed us to compare low risk offenders who were placed in a program to low risk offenders that were not, high risk to high risk, and so forth.

23 Increased Recidivism Reduced Recidivism

24

25

26

27 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

28 Treatment Effects for Low Risk: New Felon Conviction

29 Treatment Effects for Moderate Risk: New Felony Conviction

30 Treatment Effects for High Risk: New Felony Convictions

31 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%

32 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

33 Major Set of Risk/Need Factors 1.Antisocial/procriminal attitudes, values, beliefs and cognitive emotional states 2.Procriminal associates and isolation from anticriminal others 3.Temperamental and anti social personality patterns conducive to criminal activity including:  Weak socialization  Impulsivity  Adventurous  Restless/aggressive  Egocentrism  A taste for risk  Weak problem-solving/self-regulation & coping skills 4. A history of antisocial behavior

34 Major Set of Risk/Need Factors Cont. 5.Familial 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  Outright neglect and abuse 6.Low levels of personal, educational, vocational, or financial achievement 7.Low levels of involvement in prosocial leisure activities 8.Substance Abuse

35 Recent study of parole violators in Pennsylvania found a number of criminogenic factors related to failure* *Conducted by Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections

36 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

37 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)

38 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

39 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 them –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

40 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

41 Major Risk and/or Need Factor and Promising Intermediate Targets for Reduced Recidivism FactorRiskDynamic Need History of AntisocialEarly & continued Build noncriminal Behaviorinvolvement in a number alternative behaviors antisocial actsin risky situations Antisocial personalityAdventurous, pleasureBuild problem-solving, self- seeking, weak self management, anger mgt & control, restlessly aggressive coping skills Antisocial cognitionAttitudes, values, beliefsReduce antisocial cognition, & rationalizations recognize risky thinking & supportive of crime, feelings, build up alternative cognitive emotional statesless risky thinking & feelings of anger, resentment, &Adopt a reform and/or defianceanticriminal identity Antisocial associatesClose association withReduce association w/ criminals & relative isolationcriminals, enhance from prosocial peopleassociation 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).

42 Major Risk and/or Need Factor and Promising Intermediate Targets for Reduced Recidivism FactorRiskDynamic Need Family and/or maritalTwo key elements areReduce conflict, build nurturance and/or caringpositive relationships, better monitoring and/orcommunication, enhance supervisionmonitoring & supervision School and/or workLow levels of performanceEnhance performance, & satisfactionrewards, & satisfaction Leisure and/or recreationLow levels of involvement Enhancement involvement & satisfaction in anti- & satisfaction in prosocial criminal leisure activitiesactivities Substance AbuseAbuse of alcohol and/orReduce SA, reduce the drugspersonal & 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).

43 Targeting Criminogenic Need: Results from Meta- Analyses Reduction in Recidivism Increase in Recidivism Source: Gendreau, P., French, S.A., and A.Taylor (2002). What Works (What Doesn’t Work) Revised Invited Submission to the International Community Corrections Association Monograph Series Project

44 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

45 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

46 The Development and Validation of the Ohio Risk and Need Assessment System (ORAS)

47 Project Overview The Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) consists of four major instruments: 1.Pretrial 2.Community Supervision 3.Prison Intake 4.Reentry

48 Data Collection Data collection for primary data was collected by UC research staff with structured interviews, file reviews, and self-report surveys Recidivism data was collected by online court records by county of arrest as well as OHLEG Total Sample was 1,837 from across Ohio

49 Domains Examined 1.Pro-criminal views/criminal thinking 2.Friends and criminal acquaintances 3.Education 4.Family and social relationships 5.Residence stability and safety 6.Alcohol abuse/use 7.Drug abuse/use 8.Mental and physical health 9.Employment (status and values) 10.Criminal history

50 Domains Examined 11. Financial stress 12. Involvement in pro-social activities 13.Physical and sexual abuse 14.Problem recognition 15.Treatment motivation, needs, expectations 16.Anxiety/negative emotionality 17.Empathy/perspective taking 18.Coping skills/values 19.Anger/frustration

51 The Pretrial Instrument First entry into the ORAS system Outcome indicator included Failure to Appear and New Arrest

52

53 Cutoffs Scores The descriptive statistics revealed that there were very few high risk cases, indicating that the cutoffs should be adjusted to provide better representation for all groups Revised cutoffs and percentages N% Low: Medium: High:

54 Cutoffs Failure to AppearNew Arrest r =.128 r =.206

55 Cutoffs: Any Violation Differences in Recidivism Rates for each Risk Level (r =.223, n=452)

56 Community Supervision Risk Assessment Tool (ORAS-CST)

57 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)

58 The Distribution of Risk Levels for Males in the Community Supervision Sample

59 Males: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community Supervision Sample Percent with New Arrest Low 0-14 Medium = High = Very High 34+ ORAS-CST Risk Level Correlation with Recidivism: r =.373

60 The Distribution of Risk Levels for Females in the Community Supervision Sample

61 Females: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community Supervision Sample Percent with New Arrest Low 0-14 Medium High Very High 29+ ORAS-CST Risk Level Correlation with Recidivism: r =.300

62 Additional Case Planning Items Additional case planning items are incorporated into the final assessment. –These items are asked of the offender but the answers are used for case planning purposes and to facilitate targeting responsivity obstacles but which are not used in the final calculation for the prediction of adult criminal recidivism and/or probation violations. These include questions pertaining to: Low intelligencePhysical handicap Reading and writing limitationsMental health issues History of abuse/neglectTreatment motivation TransportationChild care Language Ethnicity, and cultural barriers

63 Priorities in Case Management Each domain provides cut points that indicate the priority the domain should take in service provision. Individuals who score high have high deficits in these categories and are more likely to re-offend.

64 Priorities in Case Management Criminal History Education and Finances Percent Arrested by Priority Level Low (0-3) Med (4-6) High (7-8) Percent Arrested by Priority Level Low (0-1) Med (2-4) High (5-6)

65 Priorities in Case Management Family and Social Support Neighborhood Problems Percent Arrested by Priority Level Low (0-1) Med (2-3) High (4-5) Percent Arrested by Priority Level Low (0) Med (1) High (2-3) Percent Arrested

66 Priorities in Case Management Substance Abuse Peers Percent Arrested by Priority Level Low (0-2) Med (3-4) High (5-6) Percent Arrested by Priority Level Low (0-1) Med (2-4) High (5-8) Percent Arrested

67 Priorities in Case Management Criminal Attitudes and Behavior Patterns Percent Arrested by Priority Level Low (0-3) Med (4-8) High (9-13) Percent Arrested

68 Screening Tool (ORAS-CSST) ORAS-CSST –Abbreviated version of the ORAS-CST Designed to quickly identify low risk offenders who may not need case management priorities and a full assessment. –4 Items taken from the ORAS-CST –Scores range from –Overall Correlation with new arrest: r =.381

69 The Distribution of Risk Levels for Males with the Community Supervision Screen

70 Males: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community Supervision Screen Percent with New Arrest Low 0-2 Med – High Risk (3-7) ORN-CS Screen Score Correlation with Recidivism: r =.372

71 The Distribution of Risk Levels for Females with the Community Supervision Screen

72 Females: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community Supervision Screen Percent with New Arrest Low 0-3 Med – High Risk (4-7) ORN-CS Screen Score Correlation with Recidivism: r =.365

73 Prison Reentry Assessment Tool (ORAS-RT)

74 Final Domains 1.Criminal /Supervision History (8 items) 2.Social Capital and Support (5 items) 3.Criminal Attitudes and Behavioral Patterns (7 items)

75 The Distribution of Risk Levels for Males in the Prison Release Sample

76 Males: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Prison Release Sample Percent with New Arrest Low 0-9 Medium High 16+ ORAS-PRT Risk Level Correlation with Recidivism: r =.295

77 The Distribution of Risk Levels for Females in the Prison Release Sample

78 Females: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Prison Release Sample Percent with New Arrest Low 0-10 Medium = High = 15+ ORAS-PRT Risk Level Correlation with Recidivism: r =. 442

79 Advantage to ORAS Developed and validated on Ohio population Assessments at various decision points Non-proprietary Will be fully automated Training and training of trainers available Can be used for case planning and reassessment Standardizes assessment across the State

80 Some Common Problems with Offender Assessment  Assess offenders but process ignores important factors  Assess offenders but don’t distinguish levels (high, moderate, low)  Assess offenders then don’t use it – everyone gets the same treatment  Make errors and don’t correct  Don’t assess offenders at all  Do not adequately train staff in use or interpretation  Assessment instruments are not validated or normed

81 List three speeches that have changed your life

82 List three people who have changed your life

83 Treatment Principle The most effective interventions are behavioral: Focus on current factors that influence behavior Action oriented

84 Results from Meta Analysis: Behavioral vs. NonBehavioral Reduced Recidivism Andrews, D.A An Overview of Treatment Effectiveness. Research and Clinical Principles, Department of Psychology, Carleton University. The N refers to the number of studies.

85 Most Effective Behavioral Models Structured social learning where new skills and behavioral are modeled Cognitive behavioral approaches that target criminogenic risk factors

86 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

87 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

88 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

89 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

90 Evaluation of a CBT Program: Thinking for a Change Lowenkamp and Latessa (2006) Tippecanoe County Indiana 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

91 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

92 Adjusted Recidivism Rates Comparing T4C Participants to Comparison Group

93 Recent Study of Non-Residential Community Correctional Programs in Ohio involving over 13,000 Offenders Included both misdemeanants and felons under community supervision Programs included day reporting centers, work release, ISP, and electronic monitoring programs

94 TYPE OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION PROGRAM DID NOT MATTER: FOUR FACTORS WERE SIGNIFCICANTLY RELATED TO OUTCOME Proportion of higher risk offenders in program (at least 75% of offenders in programs were moderate or high risk) Level of supervision for higher risk offenders (high risk offenders averaged longer periods of supervision than low risk) More treatment for higher risk offenders (at least 50% more time spent in treatment) More referrals for services for higher risk offenders (at least 3 referrals for every 1 received by low risk)

95 Changes in Recidivism by Program Factors for Probation Programs Reductions in Recidivism Increased Recidivism

96 Change in Recidivism by 4 Point Factor Score for Probation Programs Increased Recidivism Reduced Recidivism

97 What Doesn’t Work with Offenders?

98 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 other 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.

99 Ineffective Approaches Programs that cannot maintain fidelity 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.)

100 The Fidelity Principle: Make Sure Programs Are Delivered With Fidelity and Integrity

101 Program Integrity and Recidivism Every major study we have done has found a strong relationship between program integrity and recidivism Higher integrity score – greater the reductions in recidivism

102 Program Integrity—Relationship Between Program Integrity Score And Treatment Effect for Community Supervision Programs Reduced Recidivism Increased Recidivism

103 Program Integrity—Relationship Between Program Integrity Score And Treatment Effect for Residential Programs Reduced Recidivism Increased Recidivism

104 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

105 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


Download ppt "What Works and What Doesn’t in Reducing Recidivism: Applying the Principles of Effective Intervention in Ohio Presented by: Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D. Center."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google