WHAT WORKS WITH JUSTICE INVOLVED PEOPLE

Transcription

1 WHAT WORKS WITH JUSTICE INVOLVED PEOPLE Applying Evidence-based Decision Making Lori Lovins, Ph.D. Harris County Community Supervision and Corrections Department Director of Clinical Services

2 IN CORRECTIONS, WHAT HAVE WE TRIED? Evidence-based Decision Making??

3 Punish the Crime Out of Them

4 Scare the Crime Out of Them

5 Dance the Crime Out of Them

6 Run the Crime Out of Them

7 Drum the Crime Out of Them

8 Meditate the Crime Out of Them

9 Cultivate the Crime Out of Them

10 WHY DON T THEY WORK? What do we Know about Offender Populations?

11 Results from Meta Analysis: Criminal Sanctions versus Treatment Reduced Recidivism 0.15 Increased Recidivism CS -.07 Treatment.15

12 People Who Appear to be Resistant to Punishment Criminal risk takers Those under the influence of a substance Those with a history of being punished

13 FROM THE EARLIEST REVIEWS: Not a single reviewer of studies of the effects of official 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.

14 WHAT DOES WORK? RNR

15 Principles of Effective Intervention MAIN PRINCIPLES RNR Risk who to target Need what to target Responsivity how to do it

16 Risk Principle We need to classify offenders by risk level We need to vary treatment based on risk Intensive correctional treatment programs designed for higher risk offenders Lower risk offenders get worse

17 Use a Valid Risk Assessment Instrument to Predict Risk for Recidivism

18 The Texas Risk Assessment System Re-validated the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) TRAS includes Pretrial tool Community Supervision Tool Prison Tool Prison Reentry Tool

19 Re-arrest by TRAS Risk Level

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

21 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

22 Harbor Light--D/A West Central CCA RTC II Northwest CCC SOS MONDAY STAR WORTH CATS male RTP Lucas TH Turtle Creek Fresh Start Cinti VOA SOT Oriana CCTC AH Alum Creek TH Springrove Oriana TMRC Licking-Muskingum NEOCAP Oriana Summit ALL CBCF FACILITIES Pathfinder Mahoning Oriana RCC Franklin River City STARK ALL HWH FACILITIES EOCC Female Lorain-Medina Talbert House CCC Booth H/Salv A CATS female RTP CCA RTC I Comm Trans Ctr CompDrug Crossroads Diversified Oriana RIP Small Programs TH Pathways Alternatives CTCC Canton AH Dunning Harbor Light--Corr ARCA Dayton VOA Mansfield VOA Toledo VOA Oriana Cliff Skeen SEPTA EOCC Male TH Beekman AH Price AH Veterans Cinti VOA D/A TH Cornerstone Oriana Crossweah CATS male TC % Difference in Rate of New Incarceration Risk Principle 2010 Ohio Residential Study of Low Risk Offenders

23 AH Veterans Booth H/Salv A TH Beekman Oriana Crossweah WORTH CATS male RTP Oriana Summit CCA RTC II Harbor Light--Corr CATS male TC Diversified West Central STARK Talbert House CCC NEOCAP STAR CATS female RTP Cinti VOA D/A Crossroads CTCC Canton Mansfield VOA TH Springrove Oriana RIP SOS AH Dunning Northwest CCC Oriana RCC ALL HWH FACILITIES Mahoning Comm Trans Ctr Fresh Start ALL CBCF FACILITIES Oriana CCTC TH Cornerstone ARCA MONDAY Oriana TMRC Oriana Cliff Skeen AH Price AH Alum Creek Small Programs Alternatives Lucas Toledo VOA Franklin Harbor Light--D/A CompDrug River City TH Turtle Creek SEPTA Dayton VOA CCA RTC I Licking-Muskingum Lorain-Medina Pathfinder EOCC Male % Difference in Rate of New Incarceration Risk Principle 2010 Ohio Residential Study of High Risk Offenders

24 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%

25 Continuum of Interventions SUPERVISION non-reporting probation specialty caseloads specialty courts residential jail prison RISK LEVEL Low.High TREATMENT Individual counseling Outpatient Groups Day Treatment community residential prison treatment

26 Need Principle Target the things that make offenders offenders criminogenic needs

27 Common Need Areas for Veterans Mental Health/ PTSD Domestic Violence Financial/ Employment Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury/ Physical Disabilities Substance Abuse Housing

28 RNR Need Principle Leisure/ recreation Attitudes/ Beliefs Substance Abuse Peers Family Personality Education/ Employment

29 Factors Correlated with Risk Mean r # of studies Lower class origins Personal distress/psychopathology Educational/Vocational achievement Parental/Family Factors Temperament/misconduct/personality Antisocial attitudes/associates A re-analysis of Gendreau, Andrews, Goggin & Chanteloupe (1992) by Andrews & Bonta (1994)

30 PADOC Study Successful Re-entry Measured parolee success by retention in the community 3 years post-release Employment and Housing not the most important factors Violator characteristics: 1) Unrealistic post-release life expectations 2) Maintain antisocial attitudes 3) Lack of effective problem-solving/coping skills Protective Factors: 1) Positive relationship with spouse/mentor 2) Positive experience in CCF or with PO

31 Mental Health Risk The Risk/Need Principle As It Applies to Offenders with Mental Illness Criminogenic Risk L o w Low Minimal interventions/ Reduce barriers Minimal CJ involvement High Intensive criminogenic/ less intensive mental health Integrated Interventions H i g h Intensive mental health/ Less intensive criminogenic Intensive criminogenic and intensive mental health Cross Trained Staff

32 Veterans in the Criminal Justice System High Risk/ High Need Address risk and need factors with intensive treatment and supervision strategies Low Risk/ High Need Address non-criminogenic needs outside the criminal justice system Low Risk/ Low Need Minimize contact

33 Responsivity Principle General Responsivity Use an evidence-based model--cbt Specific Responsivity Pay attention to barriers and individual learning styles Impacts success, not recidivism

34 Ineffective Approaches Drug prevention classes focused on fear and other emotional appeals Shaming offenders Drug education programs Non-directive, client centered approaches Bibliotherapy Talking cures Self-Help programs Vague unstructured rehabilitation programs Fostering self-regard (selfesteem) Punishing smarter (boot camps, scared straight, etc.) Freudian approaches

35 Results from Meta Analysis: Behavioral vs. Non Behavioral 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.

36 Examples of CBT-based Structured Curricula Criminal Attitude: Thinking for a Change (NIC) Substance Abuse: Strategies for Self Improvement and Change (SSC Wanberg and Milkman) Cognitive Behavioral Interventions for Substance Abuse (University of Cincinnati) Co-Occurring Disorders: Changing Lives, Changing Outcomes (Morgan, Kroner, Mills) Substance Abuse/Trauma: Seeking Safety (Najavits) Gender Responsive: Moving On (VanDieten)

37 Specific Responsivity--Examples Mental Health Motivation Learning Disability Barriers Financial limitations Transportation Childcare

38 Prioritizing Interventions The Question is: What am I hoping to achieve by targeting this need area? Target Criminogenic Needs = reduce risk Target Non-criminogenic Needs = reduce barriers but NOT risk

39 Are Offenders with Mental Illness Higher Risk? Latessa (1996) Study to determine whether MDOs on probation pose a greater risk than offenders in other groups Found MDOs are no more likely to be arrested or convicted than regular probationers MDOs did have higher rates of technical violations Overall, MDOs pose no greater risk to the community

40 Risk Factors for Offenders with Mental Illness Bonta, Hanson and Law (1998) Meta-analysis of 54 studies examining whether predictors of criminal behavior/violence same for MDOs Found predictors almost identical between MDOs and non-mdos Implications: psychopathology important for managing offenders, but not predicting risk Standardized risk assessments predictive for MDOs

41 41 Evidence-Based Principles for Effective Interventions 1. Use a risk assessment instrument 2. Follow the risk and need principle 3. Address any barriers to success 4. Train offenders in new skills 5. Use of positive reinforcements 6. Build community supports for the offender 7. Measure outcomes 8. Quality assurance

42 Percent Reduction in Recidivism by Program Characteristics TR = Acceptable termination rate 3Y = In operation 3 or more years CB = Cognitive Behavioral Program CT = Criminogenic Targets RP = Role Playing almost every session RISK = Program varies intensity by RISK.

43 43 Take Home Message When Working with Justice Involved Veterans: Vary supervision and treatment by risk To reduce recidivism, address criminogenic needs To reduce barriers, address non-criminogenic needs Use behavioral strategies to address needs Connect to a range of community supports