Residential Positive Achievement Change Tool (R-PACT) Validation Study June 2013

Transcription

1 Residential Positive Achievement Change Tool (R-PACT) Validation Study June 2013 Carter Hay, PhD, Principal Investigator Alex Widdowson, MA, Research Assistant

2 Introduction This presentation describes key conclusions from a validation study of the Residential Positive Achievement Change Tool (R-PACT). This study was initiated by DJJ and we have consulted throughout with Meg Bates, Mike Baglivio, and Kathy Jackowski. 2

3 About the R-PACT The R-PACT is a survey instrument used by Florida DJJ to: o identify residential youth s criminogenic needs/risks o guide the development of intervention strategies directing the right services to the right youths o assist in determining progress. 3

4 About the R-PACT (continued) Other details: o 52 domains: 26 risk and 26 protective scores o Some domains relate to history, others to current circumstances o Administered by residential staff at multiple points 4

5 R-PACT domains I R-PACT Domains 1: Record of referrals 3A: School history 3C: current academic status 3D: Current vocational training 4A: Historic use of free time 4B: CWl ent use of free time 5A: Employment history 5B: Employability 5D: Program supervised tasks 6A: History of relationships 6B: Cunent relationships 7A: Family history 7B: Parent/ caregiver relationships 8A: 8B: 9A: 9B: 10: 11: 12: 12A: 12B: 12C: 12D: 12E: AlcohoVdrug history CWl ent alcohovdrug use Mental health history Current mental health Current attitudes Cunent aggression Current skills Dealing "ith others Dealing with situations Dealing with emotions Controlling impulses Controlling aggression THE FLORIDA STATE U IVERSTTY COli Eta:. Of CRI/\IINOI OLY & CR IMINAl JUS rlc..l:. 5

6 Illustrative items from key domains Domain 3C: Current academic status o Believes getting an education is of value; believes school is encouraging; is close to educational staff; behaves in the school setting. Domains 12, 12A-12E: Social skills o For Domain 12C (dealing with emotions): expressing feelings; understanding the feelings of others; dealing with someone else s anger. 6

7 The study s focus The study focused on two questions: Do R-PACT domain scores predict who will become a reoffender? What do R-PACT scores reveal about changes that youths experience during the residential stay? 7

8 Our approach Data come from a sample of 4,735 residential completions in FY o 85% male, 15% female o 53% black, 35% non-hispanic white, 11% Hispanic o Average age = 16.5 years 8

9 Our approach (continued) Analyses of youth change focused on changes between the Initial and Exit R-PACTs. Reoffending is defined in terms of adjudications, adjudications withheld, and convictions for new law violations occurring within twelve months. o Reoffending rate in this sample: 40% 9

10 Findings 1. Roughly 60% of the R-PACT risk and protective scales affect reoffending. o Scoring well translated into a reoffending rate of about 34-35%. o Scoring poor translated into a reoffending rate of about 45-46%. o This held across males, females, blacks, Hispanics, whites, and those above or below age 16 at intake. 10

11 Findings (continued) 2. Domain 1 Record of referrals (the extent and seriousness of youths prior offending) is the most important individual domain. o Scoring high : A reoffending rate of about 53%. o Scoring low : A reoffending rate of about 28%. 11

12 Findings (continued) 3. Other domains had consistent effects that were at least moderate in strength. o 3C Current academic status (values education) o 5B Employability (knowledge, aspirations, and plans) o 6B Current relationships (antisocial/social peers) o 10 Current attitudes and behaviors o 11 Current aggression (attitudes/involvement) o 12/12A-12E Current social skills (dealing with emotions, others, difficult situations, controlling impulses) 12

13 Findings (continued) 4. A number of these important domains worked together to affect reoffending. For our most predictive multivariate risk factor model, reoffending was: o 55% for those high on all risk variables o 40% for those at the mean on all risk variables o 26% for those scoring low on all risk variables 13

14 Findings (continued) 5. Some domains are unimportant for predicting reoffending: o 9A Mental health history o 9B Current mental health o 5A Employment history o 8A Alcohol/drug history o 7A Family history 14

15 Findings (continued) 6. Youths showed considerable improvement from the Initial to the Exit R-PACT: o 14% reduction in risk factor scores o 28% increase in protective factor scores o The greatest improvements were in the social skills domains 30%-50% of youths were classified as major improvers. 15

16 Findings (continued) Aggregate change in protective scores Frequency Total R-PACT Percent Maximum Change: Protective 16

17 Findings (continued) 7. All demographic subgroups showed Initial-to- Exit improvements. 17

18 Findings (continued) Initial to Exit changes across different groups 18

19 Findings (continued) 8. Youths who experienced the greatest Initialto-Exit improvements had lower reoffending; however: o This was primarily the case among those with a lower record of prior offending. o One exception: For high prior offending youth, improved social skills for dealing with emotions and controlling impulses reduced reoffending. 19

20 Findings (continued) 9. Improvements in social skills were especially likely to reduce reoffending. o Other notable areas: - 3C Current academic status (committed to, excels in education) - 5D Supervised tasks (performance of tasks in the facility) - 6B Current relationships (involvement with antisocial peers) - 10 Current attitudes and behaviors (antisocial attitudes/behaviors) 20

21 Recommendations 1. The R-PACT should be used to make assessments about which youths are most likely to reoffend. o This can be done for all demographic subgroups. o The focus should be on the most predictive domains. o These assessments should guide transition, release, and after-care decisions. 21

22 Recommendations (continued) 2. The R-PACT should be used to assess youth changes during the residential stay and to guide performance plans. o Special attention should be devoted to improvements in social skills (with existing programs like Thinking for a Change). 22

23 Recommendations (continued) 3. Programs should continue to prioritize and where possible intensify attention to youths commitment to doing well in school. 23

24 Recommendations (continued) 4. DJJ should closely track and where necessary increase intervention and treatment dosage/frequency for moderate and high prior offending youths. o This follows from the conclusion that Initial-to- Exit improvements reduced reoffending most notably for low prior offending youths. 24

25 Recommendations (continued) 5. DJJ should closely track and where necessary intensify post-release supervision and intervention, especially for moderate and high prior offending youth. o Youths with more extensive prior offending face greater obstacles to successful reintegration. 25

26 Priorities for future research 1. Because of differences in how youths responded to the residential stay, research should consider sources of this variation: o o o o Differences across programs Differences across interventions (e.g., Thinking for a Change or Aggression Replacement Training) Differences across program types (e.g., secure vs. nonsecure) Differences across programs behavior management systems and practices (e.g., use of Protective Action Response [PAR] vs. positive reinforcement) 26

27 Priorities for future research (continued) 2. New research should examine differences across youth in the frequency, duration, consistency, and fidelity of social skills training. 27

28 Priorities for future research (continued) 3. New research should examine the transition from residential facilities to post-release supervision/treatment. o A key question: What changes do youths experience in risk and protective factors during the period after release? o This can involve linking the R-PACT data collected during residence with the C-PACT data collected after release 28

29 Priorities for future research (continued) 4. New research should examine the R-PACT s scoring system for creating the domain risk and protective scales. o Does the current scoring system maximize the predictive accuracy of the R-PACT? 29

30 For more information: Florida 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL Office of Residential Services Meg W. Bates, MS Programs and Policy Coordinator 850/ The Florida State University College of Criminology & Criminal Justice Carter Hay, PhD, Principal Investigator Alex Widdowson, MA, Research Assistant Bureau of Research and Planning Michael Baglivio, PhD 850/ Kathy Jackowski, MS 850/