What works and What Doesn t in Reducing Recidivism and What Gets in the Way: Some Lessons Learned from Evaluating Correctional Programs

Transcription

1 What works and What Doesn t in Reducing Recidivism and What Gets in the Way: Some Lessons Learned from Evaluating Correctional Programs By: Edward Latessa School of Criminal Justice University of Cincinnati Edward.Latessa@uc.eu

2 Lesson #1 Everyone says they are Evidence Based

3 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

4 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

5 Evidence-Based Decision Making Requires 1. Assessment information - Valid and reliable offenders assessment process - Assessment of programs and practices 2. Relevant research - Consult research - Design and fund programs that are based on empirical evidence - Use existing resources (i.e., Crimesolutions.gov) 3. Available programming - To reduce risk - Improve existing programs - Develop new programs

6 Evidence-Based Decision Making Requires: 4. Evaluation - Offenders - Quality assurance processes - Performance measures - Data 5. Professionalism and knowledge from staff - Understand EBP - Trained, coached, and skilled - Commitment

7 Lesson 2 Some things don t work

8 Some so called theories we have come across Offenders lack creativity theory Offenders need discipline and physical conditioning 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 Male offenders need to get in touch with their feminine side theory

9 Other things that don t work

10 Ineffective Approaches Programs that cannot maintain fidelity Programs that focus on non-criminogenic factors Classes focused on fear and other emotional appeals Shaming offenders Drug education programs Non-directive, client centered approaches Talking cures Self-Help programs Vague unstructured rehabilitation programs Punishing smarter

11 Lesson 3 Almost anything you want to fix starts with assessment

12 Assessment helps us Meet the risk and need principles who to target and what to target Reduces bias Helps us know if interventions have worked

13 To understand assessment one needs to consider types of risk factors

14 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.

15 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

16 There are two types of dynamic risk factors Acute Can change quickly Stable Take longer to change

17 Lesson 4 If you want to reduce recidivism focus on the offenders most likely to recidivate

18 Percent with New Arrest Example of Risk Level by Recidivism for a Community Supervision Sample (males) Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk Very High Risk Low 0-14 Medium = High = Very High 34+

19 Lesson 5 Some times we fail because we provide intensive programs to the wrong offenders

20 Risk Principle As a general rule treatment effects are stronger if we target higher risk offenders, and harm can be done to low risk offenders

21 Intensive Treatment for Low Risk Offenders will Often Increase Failure Rates Low risk offenders will learn anti social behavior from higher risk Disrupts pro-social networks Increased reporting/surveillance leads to more violations/revocations

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

23 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 Lowenkamp, C. and E. J. Latessa (2002). Evaluation of Ohio s Community Based Correctional Facilities and Halfway Houses. Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati.

24 Increased Recidivism Reduced Recidivism

25 Treatment Effects For High Risk Offenders Probability of Reincarceration WORTH Monday Community Assessment Program (Men s) Talbert House Cornerstone Alternative Agency Fresh Start River City -34 All CBCF Facilities Lorain/Medina Alvis House Dunning Hall Oriana House RIP NEOCAP Talbert House Spring Grove Cincinnati VOA McMahon Hall EOCC Mahoning County Toledo VOA Community Corrections Association Harbor Light Salvation Army Comp Drug Talbert House Beekman Alvis House Alum Creek Cincinnati VOA Chemical Dependency Program Oriana House TMRC Small Programs Franklin County Community Transitions SEPTA Butler Summit County Licking/Muskingum All Facilities SRCCC Lucas County Canton Community Treatment Center

26 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 Latessa, E. J., L. Brusman Lovins, & P. Smith (2010). FINAL REPORT Follow-up Evaluation of Ohio s Community Based Correctional Facility and Halfway House Programs Outcome Study. Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati.

27 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 Treatment Effects for Low Risk

28 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 Treatment Effects for High Risk

29 Lesson 6 Sometimes we fail because we do not provide enough treatment

30 The question is: What does more intensive treatment mean in practice? Most studies show that the longer someone is in treatment the great the effects, however: Effects tend to diminish if treatment goes too long

31 Just starting to see research in corrections examining the dosage of treatment needed to achieve effect

32 Results from a 2013 Study (Sperber, Latessa, and Makarios) of 689 offenders 100-bed secure residential facility for adult male felons 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 Examining the Interaction between Level of Risk and Dosage of Treatment. (2013). Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40:

33 2010 Dosage Study of 689 Offenders Sperber,, Latessa & Makarios (2013). Examining the Interaction between Level of Risk and Dosage of Treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(3).

34 Results from 2014 Study We expanded sample Hours examined by increments of 50 Looked at low/moderate, moderate, and high

35 2014 Dosage Study involving 903 offenders Makarios, Sperber, & Latessa (2014). Treatment Dosage and the Risk Principle: A Refinement and Extension. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 53:

36 Results from Ohio Study of over 10,000 Youth: Recidivism Rates by Total Months in Programs

37 Findings from Ohio Study Recidivism rates for low risk youth served in the community were 2 to 4 times lower than those served in Residential or Institutional facilities We also found that placing low risk youth in Substance Abuse programs significantly increased their recidivism rates High risk youth were more successful when they received a higher dosage of treatment (programming for 13 months or more). Lower and moderate risk youth did better with lower dosage programs.

38 Provide Most Intensive Interventions to Higher Risk Offenders Higher risk offenders will require much higher dosage of treatment Rule of thumb: 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

39 Conclusions Supports previous research including the risk principle Indicates that we cannot have one size fits all programs

40 Lesson 7 Everyone thinks they are an expert in criminal behavior

41 Andrews and Bonta s Major Set of Risk/Need Factors 1. Antisocial/procriminal attitudes, values, beliefs & cognitive emotional states 2. Procriminal associates & 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

42 Major Set of Risk/Need Factors 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 6. Low levels of personal, educational, vocational, or financial achievement 7. Low levels of involvement in prosocial leisure activities 8. Substance Abuse

43 Study by Bucklen and Zajac of parole violators in Pennsylvania found a number of criminogenic factors related to failure Bucklen, K. & G Zajac (2009) But Some of Them Don t Come Back (to Prison!): Resource Deprivation and Thinking Errors as Determinants of Parole Success and Failure. Prison Journal, 89:

44 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

45 Pennsylvania Parole Study Employment & Financial Situation Violators were: 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)

46 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

47 Pennsylvania Parole Study Life on Parole - Violators: Had poor problem solving or coping skills Did not anticipate long term consequences of behavior Acted impulsively to immediate situations 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

48 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

49 Lesson 8 Offenders are not usually higher risk because they have a risk factor they have multiple risk factors

50 Targeting Criminogenic Need: Results from Meta-Analyses Reduction in Recidivism Increase in Recidivism Target 1-3 more noncriminogenic needs Target at least 4-6 more criminogenic needs 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

51 Criminal Thinking and Mental Illness* Morgan, Fisher, Duan, Mandracchia, and Murray (2010) studied 414 adult offenders with mental illness (265 males, 149 females) and found: 66% had belief systems supportive of criminal life style (based on 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 offenders. On Criminal Sentiments Scale-Revised, 85% of men and 72% of women with MI had antisocial attitudes, values and beliefs which was higher than incarcerated sample without MI. See: Prevalence of Criminal Thinking among State Prison Inmates with Serious Mental Illness. Law and Human Behavior 34: , and Center for Behavioral Health Services Criminal Justice Research Policy Brief, April Rutgers University.

52 Conclusion Criminal Thinking styles differentiate people who commit crimes from those who do not independent of mental illness Incarcerated persons with mental illness are often mentally ill and criminal Needs to be treated as co-occurring problems

53 Lesson 9 We can change offender behavior we just need to go about it the right way

54 Effective Correctional Interventions Use behavioral approaches: Structured social learning with cognitive behavioral treatment Focus on current risk factors Action oriented Staff follow Core Correctional Practices

55 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

56 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

57 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 Landenberger, N. A., & Lipsey, M. W. (2005). The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1:

58 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

59 Some Family Based Behavioral Interventions Designed to train family on behavioral approaches Functional Family Therapy Multi-Systemic Therapy Teaching Family Model Strengthening Families Program Common Sense Parenting Parenting Wisely

60 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 ( ) Dowden & Andrews, 2003

61 Mean Effect Sizes: Whether or not the family intervention adheres to the principles Yes No Risk Need Treatment

62 Core Correctional Practices 1. Effective Reinforcement 2. Effective Disapproval 3. Effective Use of Authority 4. Quality Interpersonal Relationships 5. Cognitive Restructuring 6. Anti-criminal Modeling 7. Structured Learning/Skill Building 8. Problem Solving Techniques

63 Results from Meta Analysis: Behavioral vs. Non-Behavioral Reduced Recidivism Nonbehavioral (N=83) Behavioral (N=41) 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.

64 Lesson 10 Doing things well makes a difference

65 Several large studies we have conducted have helped us identify characteristics of effective programs 45,000 offenders (adult and juvenile) 450 programs (community, residential, & institutional)

66 Program Integrity and Recidivism The more of the programs follow the research the greater the reduction in recidivism

67 Program Integrity Relationship Between Program Integrity Score & Treatment Effects for Residential Programs Reduced Recidivism Increased Recidivism

68 r-value Program Integrity Relationship Between Program Integrity Score And Treatment Effects for Community Supervision Programs 0.2 Reduced Recidivism Increased Recidivism % 20-39% 40-59% 60+% Program Percentage Score

69 Lesson 11: Some things get in the way Lack of leadership Mid-managers not on board Staff resistance to change Failure to invest in good assessment Failure to follow the research Poorly designed and implemented programs Lack of quality assurance

70 Suggestions for developing effective programs Need to find leaders to serve as champions Different levels are important Supervisors are the key to successful implementation Need additional training and need to part of the process All staff need to be trained, but training alone isn t enough Need to provide on-going coaching and support as well as booster sessions

71 Overcoming barriers Need to distinguish between activities & core correctional programming Helps focus on criminogenic targets for change Reduces program drift Treatment needs need to be manualized Provides structure and easier to replicate Improves quality assurance Improves consistency

72 Programs vs. Activities Core correctional programming is designed to reduce risk Activities can keep offender engaged, reduce idleness, serve as rewards It is important to distinguish between the two

73 Some Examples of Cognitive Behavioral Correctional Curriculums Aggression Replacement Training (ART) Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment Thinking for a Change (non-proprietary) Cognitive Behavioral Interventions for Substance Abuse (non-proprietary) Moving On (Female Offenders) Cognitive Behavioral Treatment for Sex Offenders (non-proprietary)

74 Data makes a difference Evaluate and collect data and make changes as needed Professionally trained and Supervisory staff need to be involved Help monitor groups and staff Help train Serve as coaches / QA reviews Changing is Difficult Take it one program at a time

75 Some 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 Program Integrity makes a difference - Service delivery, training/supervision of staff, support for program, QA, evaluation, etc.

76 Thank you