New Staff Orientation Reducing Recidivism Through Evidence-based Practices

New Staff Orientation

Reducing Recidivism Through Evidence-based Practices

What works in reducing or changing criminal behavior?

Let’s Look at History

1970s – “Nothing Works”

1980s – Deterrence and punishment

1990s – Meta-analysis “What Works”

- Incapacitation with Treatment

2000s – Evidence-based practices

Best Practices, What Works, Evidence-based Practices

What is the difference?

Best Practices

Based on collective, individual experience

Not necessarily based on scientifically tested knowledge

Does not imply attention to outcomes, evidence, or measurable standards; often based on word of mouth evidence

What Works

Points to general outcomesHigh risk offendersCognitive-behavioral approachCriminogenic needs

Meta-analytic ReviewAnalysis of large number of studies

Cognitive-behavioral Approach

Help the offender to change the attitudes and thinking patterns that contribute to criminal behavior

Replace with pro-social and non-criminal thinking and behavior

Evidence-based Practices

Getting at a specific resultCognitive-behavioral treatment is effective

in reducing recidivism with high risk offenders.

Coercive treatment works in reducing substance abuse

Is measurable

Over 20 years of research has clearly demonstrated that correctional treatment programs can significantly reduce recidivism

The most effective programs meet certain empirically derived principles

Principles of Effective Intervention

Risk Principle – target higher risk offenders (WHO)

Need Principle – target criminogenic risk/need factors (WHAT)

Treatment Principle – use behavioral approaches (HOW)

Risk PrincipleTarget those offenders with higher probability of recidivism

Provide most intensive treatment to higher risk offenders

Intensive treatment for lower risk offender can increase recidivism

Higher Risk versus Lower Risk Offenders: Results from Meta-Analyses of Behavioral Programs

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Higher Risk Lower Risk

Reduction in RecidivismSource: Gendreau, P., French, S.A. and A. Taylor (2002). What Works (What Doesn’t Work) Revised 2002. Invited submission to the International Community Corrections Association Monograph Series Project.

Recent Study of Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision in Canada

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

High Risk 31.6 51.1

Low Risk 32.3 14.5

Treatment Non-Treatment

Bonta, J et al., 2000. A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program., Vol. 27 No 3:312-329. Criminal Justice and Behavior

Need PrincipleBy assessing and targeting criminogenic needs for

change, agencies can reduce the probability of recidivism

Criminogenic

Anti social attitudes

Anti social friends

Substance abuse

Lack of empathy

Impulsive behavior

Non-Criminogenic

Anxiety

Low self esteem

Creative abilities

Medical needs

Physical conditioning

Targeting Criminogenic Need: Results from Meta-Analyses

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Target 1-3 more non-criminogenic needs

Target at least 4-6 morecriminogenic needs

Reduction in Recidivism

Increase in Recidivism

Source: Gendreau, P., French, S.A., and A.Taylor (2002). What Works (What Doesn’t Work) Revised 2002. Invited Submission to the International Community Corrections Association Monograph Series Project

Criminogenic Need

Factors that contribute to criminal behavior:

Dysfunctional family relationships

Anti-social peers

Anti-social attitudes, values and beliefs that support crime (e.g. non-conforming, anti-authority, hostility)

Substance abuse

Low self control

Treatment Principle

The most effective interventions are behavioral:

Focus on current factors that influence behavior

Action oriented

Offender behavior is appropriately reinforced

Behavioral vs. NonBehavioral

0.07

0.29

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Nonbehavioral (N=83) Behavioral (N=41)

Reduced Recidivism

Increased Recidivism

Andrews, D.A. 1994. An Overview of Treatment Effectiveness. Research and Clinical Principles, Department of Psychology, Carleton University. The N refers to the number of studies.

Most Effective Behavioral Models

Structured social learning where new skills and behavioral are modeled

Cognitive behavioral approaches that target criminogenic risk factors

Family based approaches that train family on appropriate techniques

Non-Behavioral ApproachesDrug 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.)

What Doesn’t Work (Not Research Supported)

Targeting low risk offenders

Targeting non-criminogenic needs

Punishment sanctions only

Shock incarceration/probation

Insight-oriented psychotherapy

Home detention with electronic monitoring only

Encounter type program models

Challenge/self-discipline programs

Routine probation supervision practices

RECENT STUDY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS IN OHIO

Largest study of community based correctional treatment facilities ever done

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

We also examined program characteristics

Experimental Groups:

3,737 offenders released from prison in FY 99 and placed in one of 37 Halfway Houses in Ohio3,629 offenders direct sentenced to one of 15 CBCFs

Control Group:5,855 offenders released from prison onto parole supervision during the same time periodOffenders were matched based on offense level & county of sentence

Determination of Risk

Each offender was given a risk score based on 14 items that predicted outcome.

Compared low risk offenders who were placed in a program to low risk offenders that were not, high risk to high risk, and so forth.

What did they find with regard to the Risk Principle?

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

Treatment Effect For Any Incarceration: Low Risk Offenders

-36

-29

-21 -21 -21 -21

-15

-11-11 -11

-7 -7-6

-5 -5-4 -4 -4

-2 -2 -2 -2-1

01 1

23 3

45

68

9

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Pro

ba

bil

ity

of

Re

inc

arc

era

tio

n

Treatment Effects for Low/Moderate Risk Offenders

-36

-23 -23

-19

-14 -14

-12-11

-10 -10

-7-6

-4-3

-2-1 -1

01 1 1

23 3

4 45 5

67

910 10

11 11

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Pro

bab

ility

of

Rei

nca

rcer

atio

nTreatment Effects for Moderate Risk

Offenders

-28-26

-20

-14-13

-7-6

-2-1

01 1 1 1

23

4 45 5 5

6 6 6 68 8

9 9

1210

13 13

1819

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

Pro

ba

bili

ty o

f R

ein

ca

rce

rati

on

Treatment Effect For Any Incarceration: High Risk Offenders

-34

-18

-15

3032

34

-14

-6 -6

-2 -2

2 3 3 35 6

78 8

9 10 1012 12 12

13 13 1315

2122

2425

27

HWH by Geographic Setting by Incarceration for Low Risk Offenders

19

16

22

1314

13

18

11

0

5

10

15

20

25

All Urban Metro Rural

HWH Comparison

HWH by Geographic Setting by Incarceration for High Risk Offenders

45 4448

37

54 52

6367

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

All Urban Metro Rural

HWH Comparison

Recidivism by Risk Category and Group for Sex Offenders (n=390)

26 25 27 27

15

30

45

67

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Low Low/Moderate Moderate High

Experimental Comparison

Recidivism = incarcerated in a penal institution. Ohio ½ and CBCF study

Recidivism Rates for Parole Violators

19

30

43

55

40

26

37

51

64

52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Low Risk Low-Moderate Moderate High Overall

Experimental Comparison

Ohio ½ and CBCF study

National Institute of CorrectionsImplementing Evidence-based Principles

in Community Corrections

Evidence-BasedPrinciples

OrganizationalDevelopment

Collaboration

Eight Evidence-Based Principles for Effective Interventions

Assess Offender Risk and Needs

Enhance Offender Motivation

Target Interventions

Address Cognitive-Behavioral Functioning

Provide Positive Reinforcement

Provide Ongoing Support

Measure Outcomes

Pro

vid

e Q

uality

Ass

ura

nce



Assess Offender Risk & Need

What predicts criminal behavior?Anti social attitudes Anti-social peersSubstance abuseLow self-controlAnti-social attitudes and values

(Gendreau 1992 & 1997, Andrews & Bonta, 1998, Harland, 1996, Sherman, 1998, McGuirre, 2001-2002, Elliot, 2001, Lipton, 2000)

Assess Offender Risk & NeedHow do we measure these predictors?Risk Instruments –

Offender Screening Tool (OST)Field Re-assessment of the Offender Screening

Tool (FROST)Modified Offender Screening Tool (M-OST)Stable & Static 99SARA & DVSI

Need Instruments – Adult Substance Use Survey (ASUS)

Assess Offender Risk & NeedHow should we use these results?Provides information to develop offender

case planEstablishes supervision level Identifies targeted needs for interventionProvides baseline and measure of change

in offender

Assess Risk & Needs

Officer ResponsibilitiesReview assessments with offender Incorporate into case planRe-assess and measure change





For lasting change to occur, there needs to be a level of intrinsic motivationResearch strongly suggest that motivational interviewing effectively enhances motivation for initiating and maintaining change behavior. (Miller & Rollnick, 2002; et. al.)


Officer Responsibilities:Use evidence-based verbal and non-verbal

communication skills:Attending, reflections, summarizations, open-

ended questions, etc.Explore offender’s attitude toward changeAvoid non-productive arguing and blaming Encourage praise, be optimistic






Risk Principle: Prioritize supervision and treatment resources for high risk offendersNeed principle: Target intervention to criminogenic needsTreatment Principle: Behavioral approachResponsivity Principle Match treatment type to offender Matching treatment provider to offender Matching style and methods of communication

with offender’s stage of change readiness


DosageEvidence shows that high risk offenders

initially need 40% to 70% of their time in the community occupied over a three to nine month period

Incomplete dosage can have a negative effect and waste resources

Results from a Recent Study of Treatment “Dosage” in a Prison Setting

620 Incarcerated Males

Three variations in Cognitive Behavioral Treatment: 100 hours200 hours300 hours

Comprehensive assessments were conducted and offenders assigned based on risk level and needs

Recidivism defined as incarceration (either a new conviction or revocation); one year follow-up.

Overall, the treatment group received an average of 150 hours of treatment, which reduced recidivism 10%

Dosage of treatment however, appears to be an important factor:

Dosage Continued:

Reductions in recidivism increased between 1.2% to 1.7% for each additional 20 hours of treatment

For Moderate risk offenders with few needs, 100 hours was sufficient to reduce recidivism

For High risk offenders with multiple needs, longer programs are required to significantly reduce recidivism

A 100 hour program had no effect on high risk offenders

For offenders deemed appropriate (i.e. either high risk or multiple needs, but not both), it appears that 200 hours are required to significantly reduce recidivism

If the offender is high risk & has multiple needs it may require in excess of 300 hours of treatment to affect recidivism


Treatment Principles:Proactive and strategic case planningTreatment, particularly cognitive-behavioral

should be appliedTargeted, timely treatment provides the

greatest long-term benefitDoes not necessarily apply to lower risk

offenders and can have detrimental effects(Andrews & Bonta, 1998, Petersilia, 1997 & 2002, Taxman &

Byrne, 2001)

Officer Responsibilities

Based on risk & needs assessment, make appropriate referrals to address needs (Responsivity)

Set appropriate limits and provide clear direction to the offender

Know the treatment dosage of your referral. (Dosage)

Lessons Learned

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






Address Cognitive-behavioral Functioning

Cognitive treatment addresses deviant thinking patternsBehavioral modification programs are designed to shape and maintain appropriate behavior until they become habitConsistently found to be an effective rehabilitative strategy

Address Cognitive-behavioral Functioning

Officer ResponsibilitiesUnderstand anti-social thinking and

appropriate communication techniquesPositively reinforce pro-social attitudes and

behaviorsMake appropriate referrals using evidence-

based information

Recent 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

Factors Not significant:

Type of research design

Setting - prison (generally closer to end of sentence) versus community

Juvenile versus adult

Minorities or females

Brand name

Significant Findings

(effects were stronger if): Sessions per week (2 or more)

Implementation monitored

Staff trained on CBT

Higher proportion of treatment completers

Higher risk offenders

Higher if CBT is combined with other services








Research shows that people tend to comply in the direction of most rewards and least punishmentsResearch indicates a ratio of four positive to every one negative reinforcement is optimal for promoting behavior change.Increasing positive reinforcement should not be done if it undermines swift, certain, and real responses for negative and unacceptable behavior

Officer responsibilities:Convey optimism that the offender can

change Encourage and praise any evidence of pro-

social behaviorReinforce offender change talk and self-

efficacy










Research indicates that successful interventions include the use of family members, spouses, and supportive others in the offenders environment to positively reinforce desired new behaviors

Relapse prevention training should be part of treatment and supervision plan


Officer Responsibilities:Officers need to learn and apply relapse

prevention techniques Identify and establish relationships with

offender’s positive support systems in the community

Recognize triggers for relapse and make timely intervention








Measure Outcomes

Measure OutcomesDocumentation of case information and measuring outcomes is the foundation for evidence-based practicesMeasuring outcomes identifies whether your evidence-based practices are effective and achieving the desired resultsCritical component of the County’s business principles known as Managing For Results (MFR)MFR integrates planning, budgeting, and performance measurement

Measure Outcomes

Officer Responsibilities:Maintain case documentation, written and

automatedComplete risk/needs assessment at least

every six months, assess offender change and modify case plan accordingly

Compile accurate statistical informationUse outcome measures and statistical

information to manage caseloads








Measure Outcomes

Pro

vid

e Q

uality

Ass

ura

nce

Provide Quality AssuranceContinuous process of feedback and analysis that ensures organization is effectively using evidence-based practicesPerformance measurementStaff development & trainingHiring practicesPerformance evaluationPolicies & proceduresEtc.

Maricopa County’s Quality Assurance System

MANAGING FOR RESULTS Planning for results Budgeting for results Reporting results Evaluating results Decision making

Key Results

Standard probationers not committed to DOC

IPS probationers not committed to DOC

Successful completion of probation

Successful completion of pretrial release

Presentence reports without a continuance

GOAL A: CRIME REDUCTION

Goal Champion -- Zach Dal Pra

MCAPD will enhance public safety by:

• Reducing the number of probationerscommitted to the Department ofCorrections

• Reduce the number of probationersconvicted of a new felony offense

GOAL B: COMPENSATION/ RETENTION

Goal Champion -- Barbara Broderick

Employee resignations from MCAPDbecause of pay will be reduced to theCounty average

GOAL C: PROCESS IMPROVEMENT

Goal Champion -- Mary Anne Legarski

MCAPD will improve case processing asevidenced by:

• reduced time to submit presentence reports

• increased successful completions ofprobation

• increased restitution collection rate

GOAL D: CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

Goal Champion -- Mary Walensa

MCAPD will provide excellence incustomer service as evidenced by ameasurable increase in the number ofcustomers who report increasingsatisfaction

GOAL E: INFRASTRUCTURE

Goal Champion -- Mike Goss

MCAPD will have the equipment, facilities,support services and technologicalinterconnectivity with agencies to provideefficient and effective probation services,and promote staff safety.

“Budgets can no longer support programs and

supervision practices that have not proven to be

effective.”

Thomas White

Your role in providing Quality Assurance

Understand and apply evidence-based principles

Attend trainingAsk for feedback and

supervision/coachingFollow policies and proceduresBecome familiar with evidence-based

practices literaturePractice, Practice, Practice

Documents

New Staff Orientation Reducing Recidivism Through Evidence-based Practices