#2 What Works? Reducing Criminal Offending (Dixon, IL 2.15.2011)

8/7/2019 #2 What Works? Reducing Criminal Offending (Dixon, IL 2.15.2011)

1/54

What Works?What Works?Reducing Criminal OffendingReducing Criminal Offending


2/54

Reasons for IncarcerationReasons for Incarceration

PunishmentPunishmentJustice for VictimJustice for Victim

IncapacitationIncapacitationImpact on Potential OffendersImpact on Potential OffendersReduction of RecidivismReduction of Recidivism


3/54

Impact of More Severe Sanctions onImpact of More Severe Sanctions onRecidivismRecidivism

Incarceration vs. ProbationIncarceration vs. Probation

Intermediate Sanctions vs.Intermediate Sanctions vs.Standard SupervisionStandard Supervision

(Smith, 2002)(Smith, 2002)


4/54

Characteristics of StudiesCharacteristics of Studies

117 Studies117 Studies

N = 442,471N = 442,471(Smith, 2002)(Smith, 2002)


5/54

Impact of Incarceration onImpact of Incarceration onRecidivismRecidivism

N = 268,806N = 268,80668% American Studies68% American Studies

No Change in RecidivismNo Change in Recidivismor Slight Increase in Recidivismor Slight Increase in Recidivism

(Smith, 2002)(Smith, 2002)


6/54

High Quality vs. Low Quality StudiesHigh Quality vs. Low Quality Studies

High QualityHigh Quality

Random AssignmentRandom Assignment

Comparison Group DesignsComparison Group DesignsAgeAgeCriminal HistoryCriminal HistoryAntisocial ValuesAntisocial Values(Smith, 2002)(Smith, 2002)


7/54

Random Assignment StudiesRandom Assignment Studies

2 Studies2 Studies

Incarceration Vs CommunityIncarceration Vs Community

Slight increases in recidivismSlight increases in recidivism

(Smith, 2002)(Smith, 2002)


8/54

Intermediate SanctionsIntermediate Sanctions

Electronic MonitoringElectronic MonitoringFinesFinesRestitutionRestitutionIntensive SurveillanceIntensive SurveillanceScared StraightScared StraightDrug TestingDrug Testing

Boot campBoot camp(Smith, 2002)(Smith, 2002)


9/54

Intermediate Sanctions vs. StandardIntermediate Sanctions vs. StandardSupervisionSupervision

N = 66,500N = 66,500American Studies 80%American Studies 80%

Slight Decrease in RecidivismSlight Decrease in RecidivismOr No DifferenceOr No Difference


10/54

Boot Camps Vs. RestitutionBoot Camps Vs. Restitution

Scared StraightScared Straight No ImpactNo Impact

Boot campsBoot camps No ImpactNo Impact

RestitutionRestitution 5% Decrease5% Decrease

(Latimer et al., 2001; MacKenzie et al., 2001)(Latimer et al., 2001; MacKenzie et al., 2001)


11/54

Same FindingsSame Findings

Juveniles vs. AdultsJuveniles vs. Adults

Men or Women (maybe)Men or Women (maybe)

White or Minority Race (few studies)White or Minority Race (few studies)

Low and High Risk OffendersLow and High Risk Offenders(Smith, 2002)(Smith, 2002)


12/54

WomenWomen

More Severe PunishmentMore Severe Punishment

May Increase Recidivism in Women MoreMay Increase Recidivism in Women Morethan Menthan Men

(Smith, 2002)(Smith, 2002)


13/54

ExceptionException

Intensive Supervision plus treatmentIntensive Supervision plus treatment

Slight decrease in recidivism (10%)Slight decrease in recidivism (10%)

(Smith, 2002)(Smith, 2002)


14/54

Impact of Treatment Vs. SanctionsImpact of Treatment Vs. Sanctions(Andrews, 1998)(Andrews, 1998)

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

TreatmentSanctions


15/54

Impact of Treatment Vs. SanctionsImpact of Treatment Vs. SanctionsYoung OffendersYoung Offenders

-0.020

0.020.040.060.08

0.10.120.14

Criminal

SanctionsTreatment

Dowden & Andrews, 1999


16/54

Impact of Appropriate Vs.Impact of Appropriate Vs.Inappropriate TreatmentInappropriate Treatment

(Andrews, 1998)(Andrews, 1998)

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Combined TxAppropriateInappropriateSanctions


17/54

Type of TreatmentType of Treatment

0

0.05

0.10.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Non Behavioral

CognitiveBehavioral

Andrew, 1994


18/54

Type of Treatment & Young OffendersType of Treatment & Young Offenders

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Non Behavioral

CognitiveBehavioral

Dowden & Andrews, 1999


19/54

All meta-analyses on offender treatmentAll meta-analyses on offender treatmenthave a positive mean effect size.have a positive mean effect size.

(Losel, 1995)(Losel, 1995)


20/54

Appropriate TreatmentAppropriate Treatment

Higher Risk More IntensiveHigher Risk More Intensive

Targets Criminogenic NeedsTargets Criminogenic Needs

Uses Cognitive-Behavioral TreatmentUses Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment

Implement Treatment As DesignedImplement Treatment As Designed



21/54

Targeting Criminogenic NeedsTargeting Criminogenic Needs


22/54

Criminogenic NeedsCriminogenic Needs

CriminogenicCriminogenic Non CriminogenicNon Criminogenic

Antisocial AttitudesAntisocial Attitudes Self-EsteemSelf-EsteemAntisocial FriendsAntisocial Friends AnxietyAnxietySubstance AbuseSubstance Abuse DepressionDepression

ImpulsivityImpulsivity


23/54

Targeting Criminogenic NeedsTargeting Criminogenic Needs

-0.05

0

0.05

0.10.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Targets 1 - 3Noncriminogenic Needs

Targets 4 - 6CriminogenicNeeds

Gendreau, French & Taylor, 2002


24/54

Self Esteem Vs. Criminogenic NeedsSelf Esteem Vs. Criminogenic Needs

-0.1-0.05

00.05

0.10.15

0.20.25

0.30.35

0.4

Self Esteem

CriminogenicNeeds


25/54

What WorksWhat Works

Higher Risk OffendersHigher Risk OffendersAt least 2 sessions per weekAt least 2 sessions per week

Smaller groupsSmaller groupsImplementation MonitoredImplementation MonitoredStaff Trained on Cognitive-Behavioral TxStaff Trained on Cognitive-Behavioral Tx

Higher Proportion of Treatment CompletersHigher Proportion of Treatment Completers


26/54

Programming That Doesnt WorkProgramming That Doesnt Work

PsychodynamicPsychodynamic

Non-directive/Client-centeredNon-directive/Client-centered

Disease ModelDisease Model



27/54

Impact of Cognitive Self-ChangeImpact of Cognitive Self-Change

ProgramProgramLengthLength New Accusations After YearsNew Accusations After Years

Of Time (Mo.)Of Time (Mo.) 11 22 33

No treatmentNo treatment 49%49% 71%71% 77%77%1 61 6 54%54% 67%67% 80%80%

7 +7 + 25%25% 42%42% 46%46%(Bush, 1995)(Bush, 1995)

f lf h


28/54

Impact of Cognitive Self-ChangeImpact of Cognitive Self-ChangeProgramProgram

(Bush, 1995)(Bush, 1995)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

7+ mo.

0


29/54

How Many Programs AreHow Many Programs AreAppropriate?Appropriate?

Correctional Program Assessment InventoryCorrectional Program Assessment InventoryScores (CPAI)Scores (CPAI)

50 correctional programs50 correctional programs

(Latessa & Holsinger, 1998)(Latessa & Holsinger, 1998)

H M P A


30/54

How Many Programs AreHow Many Programs AreAppropriate?Appropriate?

29.431.3

27.4

11.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Unsatis. NI Satis. VerySatis.

(Latessa & Holsinger, 1998)(Latessa & Holsinger, 1998)


31/54

ATSA Collaborative StudyATSA Collaborative Study

N = 43 studiesN = 43 studies

All treated between 1965 1999All treated between 1965 199980% treated after 198080% treated after 19809,316 subjects9,316 subjects

23 Institutional programs23 Institutional programs16 Community programs16 Community programs3 both3 both


32/54

ATSA Collaborative StudyATSA Collaborative StudyRecidivism DataRecidivism Data

TreatedTreatedN = 5018N = 5018

UntreatedUntreatedN = 4298N = 4298

OddsOddsRatioRatio

All programsAll programs

SexualSexual 12.3%12.3% 17.7%17.7% .81.81

GeneralGeneral 28.7%28.7% 41.7%41.7% .56.56


33/54

Current vs NoncurrentCurrent vs Noncurrent

Current means 1) Treatment still offered in 1999Current means 1) Treatment still offered in 19992) All Cognitive Behavioral since2) All Cognitive Behavioral since

19801980

Noncurrent had no impact on sexual or generalNoncurrent had no impact on sexual or general

recidivismrecidivism


34/54


35/54

Psychopathy: TreatmentPsychopathy: Treatment


36/54

Program for personality disordered offendersProgram for personality disordered offenders "Maxwell Jones" Therapeutic Community"Maxwell Jones" Therapeutic Community

Minimum 2 yrs in programMinimum 2 yrs in program Mean follow-up after release = 8 yrs, 4 monthsMean follow-up after release = 8 yrs, 4 months Psychopaths defined by PCL-R score of 27Psychopaths defined by PCL-R score of 27 PCL-R coded from files only (r = .96)PCL-R coded from files only (r = .96) 176 treated patients; 146 untreated patients176 treated patients; 146 untreated patients Mean time to failure = 47 monthsMean time to failure = 47 months

(Rice, Harris, & Cormier, 1992)

Psychopathy and Recidivism After Treatment


37/54

Psychopathy & TreatmentPsychopathy & Treatment

NonNonPsychopathsPsychopaths

TreatedTreated 22%22%

UntreatedUntreated 39%39%(Harris, Rice et al., 1994)(Harris, Rice et al., 1994)


38/54

Psychopathy & TreatmentPsychopathy & Treatment

PsychopathsPsychopaths

TreatedTreated 77%77%

UntreatedUntreated 55%55%

(Harris, Rice et al., 1994)(Harris, Rice et al., 1994)


39/54

Psychopathy, Treatment, and ReconvictionsPsychopathy, Treatment, and Reconvictionsin HMP Servicein HMP Service

Tx anger-management, social skills

24-month reconviction rate

(Hare, Clark, Grann, & Thornton, 2000)Hare, Clark, Grann, & Thornton, 2000)


40/54

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Low Fac I High Fac 1

Untreated

Treated

Perce nt R

ec onvicted

2-Year Post-release Reconviction Rates in theEnglish Prison Service

Hare, Clark, Grann, & Thornton (2000)


41/54


42/54

Computing Cost of RecidivismComputing Cost of Recidivism

Police InvestigationPolice InvestigationAdjudicationAdjudicationCorrectionsCorrections

Medical Care of VictimsMedical Care of VictimsMental Health Care of VictimsMental Health Care of VictimsProperty DamageProperty DamageReduced Future EarningsReduced Future Earnings(Aos, 1999)(Aos, 1999)


43/54

Computing Victim Cost of Computing Victim Cost of RecidivismRecidivism

Medical CareMedical CareMental Health CareMental Health CareProperty DamageProperty DamageReduced Future EarningsReduced Future EarningsPain and SufferingPain and Suffering

Loss of LifeLoss of Life(Aos, 1999)(Aos, 1999)


44/54

Cost Effectiveness of CorrectionalCost Effectiveness of CorrectionalProgrammingProgramming

Every $1 Spent on Correctional ProgrammingEvery $1 Spent on Correctional Programming

Taxpayers Save $5Taxpayers Save $5

Victims Save $7Victims Save $7

(Aos, 1999)(Aos, 1999)


45/54

Cost Effectiveness of Vocational andCost Effectiveness of Vocational andBasic Education ProgramsBasic Education Programs

For Every $1 SpentFor Every $1 Spent

Taxpayers save between $1.71 & $3.23Taxpayers save between $1.71 & $3.23

(Aos et al., 1999)(Aos et al., 1999)


46/54

Cost Effectiveness of Cognitive-Cost Effectiveness of Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment ProgramsBehavioral Treatment Programs

For Every $1 SpentFor Every $1 Spent

Taxpayers Save Between $2.54 and $11.48Taxpayers Save Between $2.54 and $11.48

(Aos et al., 1999)(Aos et al., 1999)


47/54

We found the largest and most consistentWe found the largest and most consistentreturns are for programs designed for returns are for programs designed for juvenile offenders.juvenile offenders.

(Aos et al., 1999, p. 6)(Aos et al., 1999, p. 6)


48/54

Cost Effectiveness of ProgrammingCost Effectiveness of Programmingfor Juvenilesfor Juveniles

For Every $1 Spent on Juvenile ProgramsFor Every $1 Spent on Juvenile Programs

Tax Payers Save Between $7.62 & $31.4Tax Payers Save Between $7.62 & $31.4

(Aos, 1999)(Aos, 1999)


49/54

Cost/Benefit of Adolescent NonCost/Benefit of Adolescent NonOffender ProgramsOffender Programs

ProgramProgram TaxpayersTaxpayers Taxpayers &Taxpayers &AloneAlone VictimsVictims

QuantumQuantum $.09$.09 $.13$.13

Big BrothersBig Brothers $1.30$1.30 $2.12$2.12(Aos, 1999)(Aos, 1999)


50/54


51/54

Cost/Benefit of AdolescentCost/Benefit of AdolescentSupervision ProgramsSupervision Programs


DiversionDiversion $7.62$7.62 $13.61$13.61IntensiveIntensiveProbationProbation .90.90 1.491.49Boot CampBoot Camp .42.42 .26.26

(Aos, 1999)(Aos, 1999)


52/54

Cost/Benefit of AdolescentCost/Benefit of AdolescentTreatment ProgramsTreatment Programs


ARPARP $19.57$19.57 $31.40$31.40Multi-SystemicMulti-Systemic 8.388.38 13.4513.45Functional FamFunctional Fam 6.856.85 10.9910.99

Multi Tx Foster Multi Tx Foster 14.0714.07 22.5822.58


53/54

Cost/Benefit of AdolescentCost/Benefit of AdolescentTreatment ProgramsTreatment Programs

ProgramProgram Cost/Cost/ EffectEffectParticipantParticipant SizeSize

AggressionAggressionReplacementReplacementTrainingTraining $404$404 -.26-.26

Multi-SysMulti-SysFamily TxFamily Tx $4,540$4,540 -.68-.68

(Aos, 1999)(Aos, 1999)


54/54

What Does It Take to Break EvenWhat Does It Take to Break Even

Depends on the CostDepends on the Cost

Percent Reduction toPercent Reduction toBreak EvenBreak Even

AggressionAggressionReplacementReplacementTrainingTraining 1.4%1.4%

Multi-SystemicMulti-SystemicFamily TherapyFamily Therapy 10.2%10.2%

Documents

#2 What Works? Reducing Criminal Offending (Dixon, IL 2.15.2011)