Presentation on theme: "What Works and What Doesn’t in Reducing Recidivism: Applying the Principles of Effective Intervention Presented by: Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D. Center for."— Presentation transcript:
1 What Works and What Doesn’t in Reducing Recidivism: Applying the Principles of Effective InterventionPresented by:Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D.Center for Criminal Justice ResearchSchool of Criminal JusticeUniversity of Cincinnati
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 goodThe highest form is empirical evidence – research, data, results from controlled studies, etc. - but sometimes it doesn’t make us feel good
3 Evidence Based Practice is: Easier to think of as Evidence Based Decision Making2. 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
4 How To Digest This Information Think in terms of own agencyThink in terms of outside agenciesThink in terms of a system perspective
5 Evidence Based Decision Making Requires Assessment informationRelevant researchAvailable programmingEvaluationProfessionalism and knowledge from staff
6 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 mistakeNeed to examine a body of researchSo, what does the body of knowledge about correctional interventions tell us?
7 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 effectiveThe most effective approaches are based on some principles of effective interventionsRisk (Who)Need (What)Treatment (How)Program Integrity (How Well)
8 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.
9 Example of Risk Levels by Recidivism for a Community Supervision Sample Percent with New ArrestLow Medium = High = 24-33
10 There are Three Elements to the Risk Principle Target those offenders with higher probability of recidivismProvide most intensive treatment to higher risk offendersIntensive treatment for lower risk offender can increase recidivism
11 #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
12 Example of Targeting Higher Risk Offenders If you have 100 High risk offenders about 60% will failIf 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 failIf you put them in same program failure rate will be 20%
13 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
14 #2: Provide Most Intensive Interventions to Higher Risk Offenders Higher risk offenders will require much higher dosage of treatmentRule of thumb: 100 hours for moderate risk200+ hours for higher risk100 hours for high risk will have little if any effectDoes not include work/school and other activities that are not directly addressing criminogenic risk factors
15 Intensive Treatment for Low Risk Offenders will Often Increase Failure Rates Low risk offenders will learn anti social behavior from higher riskDisrupts prosocial networks
16 Study of Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision in Canada Recidivism RatesBonta, J et al., A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program., Vol. 27 No 3: Criminal Justice and Behavior
17 2002 STUDY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS IN OHIO Largest study of community based correctional treatment facilities ever done up to that timeTotal 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 offendersRecidivism measures included new arrests & incarceration in a state penal institutionWe also examined program characteristics
18 Determination of RiskEach 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 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
24 Treatment Effects for Low Risk: New Felon Conviction Just over 10% of the sample here---some instability in findings
25 Treatment Effects for Moderate Risk: New Felony Conviction Just over 10% of the sample here---some instability in findings
26 Treatment Effects for High Risk: New Felony Convictions Just over 10% of the sample here---some instability in findings
27 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%
28 Risk Level by New Conviction: Results from 2005 Ohio Study of over 14,000 Youth
29 Need Principle By assessing and targeting criminogenic needs for change, agencies can reduce the probability of recidivismCriminogenicAnti social attitudesAnti social friendsSubstance abuseLack of empathyImpulsive behaviorNon-CriminogenicAnxietyLow self esteemCreative abilitiesMedical needsPhysical conditioning
30 Major Set of Risk/Need Factors Antisocial/procriminal attitudes, values, beliefs and cognitive emotional statesProcriminal associates and isolation from anticriminal othersTemperamental and anti social personality patterns conducive to criminal activity including:Weak socializationImpulsivityAdventurousRestless/aggressiveEgocentrismA taste for riskWeak problem-solving/self-regulation & coping skills4. A history of antisocial behavior
31 Major Set of Risk/Need Factors Cont. Familial factors that include criminality and a variety of psychological problems in the family of origin including:Low levels of affection, caring, and cohesivenessPoor parental supervision and discipline practicesOutright neglect and abuseLow levels of personal, educational, vocational, or financial achievementLow levels of involvement in prosocial leisure activitiesSubstance Abuse
32 Recent study of parole violators in Pennsylvania found a number of criminogenic factors related to failure**Conducted by Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections
33 More likely to hang around with individuals with criminal backgrounds Pennsylvania Parole Study Social Network and Living Arrangements Violators Were:More likely to hang around with individuals with criminal backgroundsLess likely to live with a spouseLess likely to be in a stable supportive relationshipLess likely to identify someone in their life who served in a mentoring capacity
34 Pennsylvania Parole Study Employment & Financial Situation Violators were: Slightly more likely to report having difficulty getting a jobLess likely to have job stabilityLess likely to be satisfied with employmentLess likely to take low end jobs and work upMore likely to have negative attitudes toward employment & unrealistic job expectationsLess likely to have a bank accountMore likely to report that they were “barely making it” (yet success group reported over double median debt)
35 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
36 Pennsylvania Parole Study Life on Parole Violators were: Had unrealistic expectations about what life would be like outside of prisonHad poor problem solving or coping skillsDid not anticipate long term consequences of behaviorFailed to utilize resources to help themActed impulsively to immediate situationsFelt they were not in controlMore likely to maintain anti-social attitudesViewed violations as an acceptable option to situationMaintained general lack of empathyShifted blame or denied responsibility
37 Pennsylvania Parole Violator Study: Successes and failures did not differ in difficulty in finding a place to live after releaseSuccesses & failures equally likely to report eventually obtaining a job
38 Major Risk and/or Need Factor and Promising Intermediate Targets for Reduced Recidivism Factor Risk Dynamic NeedHistory of Antisocial Early & continued Build noncriminalBehavior involvement in a number alternative behaviorsantisocial acts in risky situationsAntisocial personality Adventurous, pleasure Build problem-solving, self-seeking, weak self management, anger mgt &control, restlessly aggressive coping skillsAntisocial cognition Attitudes, values, beliefs Reduce antisocial cognition,& rationalizations recognize risky thinking &supportive of crime, feelings, build up alternativecognitive emotional states less risky thinking & feelingsof anger, resentment, & Adopt a reform and/ordefiance anticriminal identityAntisocial associates Close association with Reduce association w/criminals & relative isolation criminals, enhancefrom prosocial people association w/ prosocial peopleAdopted from Andrews, D.A. et al, (2006). The Recent Past and Near Future of Risk and/or Need Assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52 (1).
39 Major Risk and/or Need Factor and Promising Intermediate Targets for Reduced Recidivism Factor Risk Dynamic NeedFamily and/or marital Two key elements are Reduce conflict, buildnurturance and/or caring positive relationships, better monitoring and/or communication, enhancesupervision monitoring & supervisionSchool and/or work Low levels of performance Enhance performance,& satisfaction rewards, & satisfactionLeisure and/or recreation Low levels of involvement Enhancement involvement& satisfaction in anti- & satisfaction in prosocialcriminal leisure activities activitiesSubstance Abuse Abuse of alcohol and/or Reduce SA, reduce thedrugs personal & interpersonalsupports for SA behavior,enhance alternatives to SAAdopted from Andrews, D.A. et al, (2006). The Recent Past and Near Future of Risk and/or Need Assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52 (1).
41 Targeting Criminogenic Need: Results from Meta-Analyses Reduction in RecidivismIncrease in RecidivismSource: 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
42 Assessment is the engine that drives effective correctional programs Need to meet the risk and need principleReduces biasAids decision makingAllows you to target dynamic risk factors and measure change
43 Dynamic Risk Factors and Their Importance Also called criminogenic needsChanging these factors changes the probability of recidivismProvide the basis for developing a treatment planAddress factors that will reduce riskLead to public safety
44 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 offender 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.
45 Family history of heart attacks Gender (males) Age (over 50) According to the American Heart Association, there are a number of risk factors that increase your chances of a first heart attackFamily history of heart attacksGender (males)Age (over 50)Inactive lifestyleOver weightHigh blood pressureSmokingHigh Cholesterol level
46 New Non-Proprietary System is the Indiana Risk Assessment System Development based on assessment of over 2,600 offenders (Ohio and Indiana)Instruments will includes:PretrialCommunity SupervisionScreenerPrison IntakeReentry
47 Indiana Youth Assessment System Five Instruments:- Diversion Tool- Detention Tool- Disposition Tool (with Screener)- Residential Tool- Reentry Tool
48 Ohio Youth Assessment System Full Report: Dispositional Tool
49 1.0 Juvenile Justice History 2.0 Family and Living Arrangements3.0 Peers and Social Support Network
50 Treatment Principle The most effective interventions are behavioral: Focus on current factors that influence behaviorAction oriented
51 Results from Meta Analysis: Behavioral vs. NonBehavioral Reduced RecidivismAndrews, D.A An Overview of Treatment Effectiveness. Research and Clinical Principles, Department of Psychology, Carleton University. The N refers to the number of studies.
52 Most Effective Behavioral Models Structured social learning where new skills and behaviors are modeledFamily based approaches that train family on appropriate techniquesCognitive behavioral approaches that target criminogenic risk factors
53 Family Based Interventions Designed to train family on behavioral approachesFunctional Family TherapyMulti-Systemic TherapyTeaching Family ModelStrengthening Families Program (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention)
54 Effectiveness of Family Based Intervention: Results from Meta Analysis 38 primary studies with 53 effect testsAverage reduction in recidivism= 21%However, much variability was present( )Dowden & Andrews, 2003
55 Mean Effect Sizes: Whether or not the family intervention adheres to the principles
56 Social LearningRefers 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
57 The Four Principles of Cognitive Intervention Thinking affects behaviorAntisocial, distorted, unproductive irrational thinking can lead to antisocial and unproductive behaviorThinking can be influencedWe can change how we feel and behave by changing what we think
58 Recent Meta-Analysis of Cognitive Behavioral Treatment for Offenders by Landenberger & Lipsey (2005)*Reviewed 58 studies:19 random samples23 matched samples16 convenience samplesFound that on average CBT reduced recidivism by 25%, but the most effective configurations found more than 50% reductions
59 Significant Findings (effects were stronger if): Sessions per week (2 or more) - RISKImplementation monitored - FIDELITYStaff trained on CBT - FIDELITYHigher proportion of treatment completers -RESPONSIVITYHigher risk offenders - RISKHigher if CBT is combined with other services - NEED
60 Evaluation of a CBT Program: Thinking for a Change Lowenkamp and Latessa (2006) Tippecanoe County IndianaProbation +T4C vs. Probation136 Treatment cases97 Comparison casesVariable follow up (range 6 to 64 months; average 26)Outcome—arrest for new criminal behavior
61 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)AgeSexRaceTime at risk or length of follow up time
62 Adjusted Recidivism Rates Comparing T4C Participants to Comparison Group
63 Included both misdemeanants and felons under community supervision Recent Study of Non-Residential Community Correctional Programs in Ohio involving over 13,000 OffendersIncluded both misdemeanants and felons under community supervisionPrograms included day reporting centers, work release, ISP, and electronic monitoring programs
64 TYPE OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION PROGRAM DID NOT MATTER: FOUR FACTORS WERE SIGNIFCICANTLY RELATED TO OUTCOMEProportion 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)
65 Changes in Recidivism by Program Factors for Probation Programs Reductions in RecidivismIncreased Recidivism
66 Change in Recidivism by 4 Point Factor Score for Probation Programs Reduced RecidivismIncreased Recidivism
68 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 ridersSay 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.
69 Ineffective Approaches Programs that cannot maintain fidelityDrug prevention classes focused on fear and other emotional appealsShaming offendersDrug education programsNon-directive, client centered approachesBibliotherapyFreudian approachesTalking curesSelf-Help programsVague unstructured rehabilitation programsMedical modelFostering self-regard (self-esteem)“Punishing smarter” (boot camps, scared straight, etc.)
70 Relationship Between Coed Programs and Treatment Effect 2002 Study
71 Relationship between Coed and Single Sex Programs- 2010 Study
72 The Fidelity Principle: Make Sure Programs Are Delivered With Fidelity and Integrity
73 Program Integrity and Recidivism Every major study we have done has found a strong relationship between program integrity and recidivismHigher integrity score – greater the reductions in recidivism
74 Program Integrity—Relationship Between Program Integrity Score And Treatment Effect for Community Supervision ProgramsReduced RecidivismIncreased Recidivism
75 Program Integrity—Relationship Between Program Integrity Score And Treatment Effect for Residential ProgramsReduced RecidivismIncreased Recidivism0-3031-5960-6970+
76 Impact of Program Factors Predicting Felony Adjudication for Juvenile Programs
77 Lessons Learned from the Research Who you put in a program is important – pay attention to riskWhat you target is important – pay attention to criminogenic needsHow you target offender for change is important – use behavioral approaches
78 Important Considerations Offender assessment is the engine that drives effective programshelps you know who & what to targetDesign programs around empirical researchhelps you know how to target offendersProgram Integrity make a differenceService delivery, disruption of criminal networks, training/supervision of staff, support for program, QA, evaluation
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.