What Works and What Doesn

1
What Works and What Doesnt in Reducing
Recidivism Applying the Principles of Effective
Intervention in Ohio

• Presented by
• Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D.
• Center for Criminal Justice Research
• School of Criminal Justice
• University of Cincinnati
• www.uc.edu/criminaljustice

2
Purpose of Criminal Sanctions

• Retribution punishment is justified simply
  because a person has broken the law
• General Deterrence sanction deters potential
  offenders by inflicting suffering on actual ones
• Specific Deterrence sanction is applied to stop
  to offender from reoffending again
• Restoration crime control lies primarily in the
  community, and victims should be central to the
  process of restoration
• Incapacitation limits offenders ability to
  commit another crime
• Rehabilitation change in behavior of the
  offender produced by treatment and services.
  Offender chooses to refrain from new crimes
  rather than being unable to.

3
Deterrence TheoryAn Exercise in Social Psychology

• Aware of the sanction
• Perceive it as unpleasant
• Weigh the cost and benefits
• Assess the risk
• Make a rational choice

4
BUTMost Street Level Offenders

• Impulsive
• Short term perspective
• Disorganized
• Failed in school, jobs, etc.
• Distorted thinking
• Hang around with others like themselves
• Use drugs alcohol
• Not rational actors
• In short
• - Deterrence theory collapses

5
Incapacitation

• Stronger with some type of offenders (i.e. bank
  robbers--virtually no effect with drug dealers or
  users)
• High cost for relatively low pay off
• Effects are more short term

6
People Who Appear to be Resistant to Punishment

• Psychopathic risk takers
• Those under the influence of a substance
• Those with a history of being punished

7
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 doesnt make us feel good

8
Evidence Based Practice is

• 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

9
How To Digest This Information

1. Think in terms of own agency
2. Think in terms of outside agencies
3. Think in terms of a system perspective

10
Evidence Based Decision Making Requires

• Assessment information
• Relevant research
• Available programming
• Evaluation
• Professionalism and knowledge from staff

11
What does the Research tell us?

• There is often a Misapplication of Research
  XXX Study Says
• - the problem is if you believe every study we
  wouldnt eat anything (but we would drink a lot
  of red wine!)
• Looking at one study can be a mistake
• Need to examine a body of research
• So, what does the body of knowledge about
  correctional interventions tell us?

12
A Large Body of Research Has Indicated.

• .that correctional services and interventions
  can be effective in reducing recidivism for
  offenders, however, not all programs and
  interventions are equally effective
• The most effective approaches are based on some
  principles of effective interventions
• Risk (Who)
• Need (What)
• Treatment (How)
• Program Integrity (How Well)

13
Lets Start with the Risk Principle

• Risk refers to risk of reoffending and not the
  seriousness of the offense.
• You can be a low risk felon or a high risk felon,
  a low risk misdemeanant or a high risk
  misdemeanant.

14
There are Three Elements to the Risk Principle

1. Target those offenders with higher probability of
   recidivism
2. Provide most intensive treatment to higher risk
   offenders
3. Intensive treatment for lower risk offender can
   increase recidivism

15
1 Targeting Higher Risk Offenders

• It is important to understand that even with EBP
  there will be failures.
• Even if you reduce recidivism rates you will
  still have high percentage of failures

16
Example of Targeting Higher Risk Offenders

• If you have 100 High risk offenders about 60
  will fail
• If you put them in well designed EBP for
  sufficient duration you may reduce failure rate
  to 40
• If you have 100 low risk offenders about 10 will
  fail
• If you put them in same program failure rate will
  be 20

17
Targeting Higher Risk Offenders continued

• In the end, who had the lower recidivism rate?

• Mistake we make is comparing high risk to low
  risk rather than look for treatment effects

18
2 Provide Most Intensive Interventions to
Higher Risk Offenders

• Higher risk offenders will require much higher
  dosage of treatment
• Rule of thumb 100 hours for moderate risk
• 200 hours for higher risk
• 100 hours for high risk will have little if any
  effect
• Does not include work/school and other activities
  that are not directly addressing criminogenic
  risk factors

19
Intensive Treatment for Low Risk Offenders will
Often Increase Failure Rates

• Low risk offenders will learn anti social
  behavior from higher risk
• Disrupts prosocial networks

20
Study of Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision in
Canada
Recidivism Rates
Bonta, J et al., 2000. A Quasi-Experimental
Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation
Supervision Program., Vol. 27 No 3312-329.
Criminal Justice and Behavior
21
2002 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

22
Determination of Risk

• Each offender was given a risk score based on 14
  items that predicted outcome.
• This allowed us to compare low risk offenders who
  were placed in a program to low risk offenders
  that were not, high risk to high risk, and so
  forth.

23
Reduced Recidivism
Increased Recidivism
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
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

28
Treatment Effects for Low Risk New Felon
Conviction
29
Treatment Effects for Moderate Risk New Felony
Conviction
30
Treatment Effects for High Risk New Felony
Convictions
31
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

32
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

33
Major Set of Risk/Need Factors

• Antisocial/procriminal attitudes, values, beliefs
  and cognitive emotional states
• Procriminal associates and isolation from
  anticriminal others
• 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

34
Major Set of Risk/Need Factors Cont.

• Familial factors that include criminality and a
  variety of psychological problems in the family
  of origin including
• Low levels of affection, caring, and cohesiveness
• Poor parental supervision and discipline
  practices
• Outright neglect and abuse
• Low levels of personal, educational, vocational,
  or financial achievement
• Low levels of involvement in prosocial leisure
  activities
• Substance Abuse

35
Recent study of parole violators in Pennsylvania
found a number of criminogenic factors related to
failure

• Conducted by Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections

36
Pennsylvania Parole StudySocial 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

37
Pennsylvania Parole Study Employment Financial
Situation Violators were

• Slightly more likely to report having difficulty
  getting a job
• 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)

38
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

39
Pennsylvania Parole StudyLife on
ParoleViolators were

• Had unrealistic expectations about what life
  would be like outside of prison
• Had poor problem solving or coping skills
• Did not anticipate long term consequences of
  behavior
• Failed to utilize resources to help them
• Acted impulsively to immediate situations
• Felt they were not in control
• 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

40
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

41
Major Risk and/or Need Factor and Promising
Intermediate Targets for Reduced Recidivism

• Factor Risk Dynamic Need
• History of Antisocial Early continued Build
  noncriminal
• Behavior involvement in a number alternative
  behaviors
• antisocial acts in risky situations
• Antisocial personality Adventurous,
  pleasure Build problem-solving, self-
• seeking, weak self management, anger mgt
• control, restlessly aggressive coping skills
• Antisocial cognition Attitudes, values,
  beliefs Reduce antisocial cognition,
• rationalizations recognize risky thinking
  
• supportive of crime, feelings, build up
  alternative
• cognitive emotional states less risky
  thinking feelings
• of anger, resentment, Adopt a reform and/or
  
• defiance anticriminal identity
• Antisocial associates Close association
  with Reduce association w/
• criminals relative isolation criminals,
  enhance

Adopted from Andrews, D.A. et al, (2006). The
Recent Past and Near Future of Risk and/or Need
Assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52 (1).
42
Major Risk and/or Need Factor and Promising
Intermediate Targets for Reduced Recidivism

• Factor Risk Dynamic Need
• Family and/or marital Two key elements are Reduce
  conflict, build
• nurturance and/or caring positive
  relationships, better monitoring
  and/or communication, enhance
• supervision monitoring supervision
• School and/or work Low levels of
  performance Enhance performance,
• satisfaction rewards, satisfaction
• Leisure and/or recreation Low levels of
  involvement Enhancement involvement
• satisfaction in anti- satisfaction in
  prosocial
• criminal leisure activities activities
• Substance Abuse Abuse of alcohol and/or Reduce
  SA, reduce the
• drugs personal interpersonal
• supports for SA behavior,
• enhance alternatives to SA

Adopted from Andrews, D.A. et al, (2006). The
Recent Past and Near Future of Risk and/or Need
Assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52 (1).
43
Targeting Criminogenic Need Results from
Meta-Analyses
Reduction in Recidivism
Increase in Recidivism
Source Gendreau, P., French, S.A., and A.Taylor
(2002). What Works (What Doesnt Work) Revised
2002. Invited Submission to the International
Community Corrections Association Monograph
Series Project
44
Assessment is the engine that drives effective
correctional programs

• Need to meet the risk and need principle
• Reduces bias
• Aids decision making
• Allows you to target dynamic risk factors and
  measure change

45
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

46
The Development and Validation of theOhio Risk
and NeedAssessment System (ORAS)
47
Project Overview

• The Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) consists
  of four major instruments
• Pretrial
• Community Supervision
• Prison Intake
• Reentry

48
Data Collection

• Data collection for primary data was collected
  by UC research staff with structured interviews,
  file reviews, and self-report surveys
• Recidivism data was collected by online court
  records by county of arrest as well as OHLEG
• Total Sample was 1,837 from across Ohio

49
Domains Examined

• Pro-criminal views/criminal thinking
• Friends and criminal acquaintances
• Education
• Family and social relationships
• Residence stability and safety
• Alcohol abuse/use
• Drug abuse/use
• Mental and physical health
• Employment (status and values)
• Criminal history

50
Domains Examined

• 11. Financial stress
• 12. Involvement in pro-social activities
• 13. Physical and sexual abuse
• 14. Problem recognition
• 15. Treatment motivation, needs, expectations
• 16. Anxiety/negative emotionality
• 17. Empathy/perspective taking
• 18. Coping skills/values
• 19. Anger/frustration

51
The Pretrial Instrument

• First entry into the ORAS system
• Outcome indicator included Failure to Appear and
  New Arrest

52
(No Transcript)
53
Cutoffs Scores

• The descriptive statistics revealed that there
  were very few high risk cases, indicating that
  the cutoffs should be adjusted to provide better
  representation for all groups
• Revised cutoffs and percentages
• N
• Low 0-2 126 28
• Medium 3-5 239 53
• High 6 87 19

54
Cutoffs

• Failure to Appear

• New Arrest

r .128
r .206
55
Cutoffs Any Violation
Differences in Recidivism Rates for each Risk
Level (r .223, n452)
56
Community Supervision Risk Assessment Tool
(ORAS-CST)
57
Final Domains on the ORAS-CST

• Criminal /Supervision History (6 items)
• Education, Employment and Finances(6 items)
• Family and Social Support (5 items)
• Neighborhood Problems (2 items)
• Substance Use (5 items)
• Peer Associations (4 items)
• Criminal Attitudes and Behavioral Problems (7
  items)

58
The Distribution of Risk Levels for Males in the
Community Supervision Sample
59
Males Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community
Supervision Sample
Percent with New Arrest
Low 0-14 Medium 15-23
High 24-33 Very High 34 ORAS-CST
Risk Level Correlation with Recidivism r .373
60
The Distribution of Risk Levels for Females in
the Community Supervision Sample
61
Females Risk Level by Recidivism for the
Community Supervision Sample
Percent with New Arrest
Low 0-14 Medium 15-21
High 22-28 Very High
29 ORAS-CST Risk Level Correlation with
Recidivism r .300
62
Additional Case Planning Items

• Additional case planning items are incorporated
  into the final assessment.
• These items are asked of the offender but the
  answers are used for case planning purposes and
  to facilitate targeting responsivity obstacles
  but which are not used in the final calculation
  for the prediction of adult criminal recidivism
  and/or probation violations.
• These include questions pertaining to
• Low intelligence Physical handicap
• Reading and writing limitations Mental health
  issues
• History of abuse/neglect Treatment motivation
• Transportation Child care
• Language Ethnicity, and cultural barriers

63
Priorities in Case Management

• Each domain provides cut points that indicate the
  priority the domain should take in service
  provision.
• Individuals who score high have high deficits in
  these categories and are more likely to re-offend.

64
Priorities in Case Management

• Education and Finances

• Criminal History

Percent Arrested by Priority Level Low (0-3) Med
(4-6) High (7-8)
Percent Arrested by Priority Level Low (0-1) Med
(2-4) High (5-6)
65
Priorities in Case Management

• Neighborhood Problems

• Family and Social Support

Percent Arrested
Percent Arrested
Percent Arrested by Priority Level Low (0-1) Med
(2-3) High (4-5)
Percent Arrested by Priority Level Low (0) Med
(1) High (2-3)
66
Priorities in Case Management

• Peers

• Substance Abuse

Percent Arrested
Percent Arrested
Percent Arrested by Priority Level Low (0-2) Med
(3-4) High (5-6)
Percent Arrested by Priority Level Low (0-1) Med
(2-4) High (5-8)
67
Priorities in Case Management

• Criminal Attitudes and Behavior Patterns

Percent Arrested
Percent Arrested by Priority Level Low (0-3) Med
(4-8) High (9-13)
68
Screening Tool (ORAS-CSST)

• ORAS-CSST
• Abbreviated version of the ORAS-CST
• Designed to quickly identify low risk offenders
  who may not need case management priorities and a
  full assessment.
• 4 Items taken from the ORAS-CST
• Scores range from 0 - 7
• Overall Correlation with new arrest r .381

69
The Distribution of Risk Levels for Males with
the Community Supervision Screen
70
Males Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community
Supervision Screen
Percent with New Arrest
Low 0-2
Med High Risk (3-7) ORN-CS Screen Score
Correlation with Recidivism r .372
71
The Distribution of Risk Levels for Females with
the Community Supervision Screen
72
Females Risk Level by Recidivism for the
Community Supervision Screen
Percent with New Arrest
Low 0-3
Med High Risk (4-7) ORN-CS Screen Score
Correlation with Recidivism r .365
73
Prison Reentry Assessment Tool (ORAS-RT)
74
Final Domains

• Criminal /Supervision History (8 items)
• Social Capital and Support (5 items)
• Criminal Attitudes and Behavioral Patterns (7
  items)

75
The Distribution of Risk Levels for Males in the
Prison Release Sample
76
Males Risk Level by Recidivism for the Prison
Release Sample
Percent with New Arrest
Low 0-9
Medium 10-15 High
16 ORAS-PRT Risk Level Correlation with
Recidivism r .295
77
The Distribution of Risk Levels for Females in
the Prison Release Sample
78
Females Risk Level by Recidivism for the Prison
Release Sample
Percent with New Arrest
Low 0-10
Medium 11-14 High
15 ORAS-PRT Risk Level Correlation with
Recidivism r .442
79
Advantage to ORAS

• Developed and validated on Ohio population
• Assessments at various decision points
• Non-proprietary
• Will be fully automated
• Training and training of trainers available
• Can be used for case planning and reassessment
• Standardizes assessment across the State

80
Some Common Problems with Offender Assessment

• Assess offenders but process ignores important
  factors
• Assess offenders but dont distinguish levels
  (high, moderate, low)
• Assess offenders then dont use it everyone
  gets the same treatment
• Make errors and dont correct
• Dont assess offenders at all
• Do not adequately train staff in use or
  interpretation
• Assessment instruments are not validated or normed

81

• List three speeches that have changed your life

82

• List three people who have changed your life

83
Treatment Principle

• The most effective interventions are behavioral
• Focus on current factors that influence behavior
  
• Action oriented

84
Results from Meta Analysis Behavioral vs.
NonBehavioral
Reduced 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.
85
Most Effective Behavioral Models

• Structured social learning where new skills and
  behavioral are modeled
• Cognitive behavioral approaches that target
  criminogenic risk factors

86
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
87
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

88
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

89
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

90
Evaluation of a CBT Program Thinking for a
ChangeLowenkamp and Latessa (2006)

• Tippecanoe County Indiana
• Probation T4C vs. Probation
• 136 Treatment cases
• 97 Comparison cases
• Variable follow up (range 6 to 64 months average
  26)
• Outcomearrest for new criminal behavior

91
Multivariate Model

• Controlled for
• Risk (prior arrests, prior prison, prior
  community supervision violations, history of drug
  use, history of alcohol problems, highest grade
  completed, employment status at arrest)
• Age
• Sex
• Race
• Time at risk or length of follow up time

92
Adjusted Recidivism Rates Comparing T4C
Participants to Comparison Group
93
Recent Study of Non-Residential Community
Correctional Programs in Ohio involving over
13,000 Offenders

• Included both misdemeanants and felons under
  community supervision
• Programs included day reporting centers, work
  release, ISP, and electronic monitoring programs

94
TYPE OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION PROGRAM DID NOT
MATTER FOUR FACTORS WERE SIGNIFCICANTLY RELATED
TO OUTCOME

• Proportion of higher risk offenders in program
  (at least 75 of offenders in programs were
  moderate or high risk)
• Level of supervision for higher risk offenders
  (high risk offenders averaged longer periods of
  supervision than low risk)
• More treatment for higher risk offenders (at
  least 50 more time spent in treatment)
• More referrals for services for higher risk
  offenders (at least 3 referrals for every 1
  received by low risk)

95
Changes in Recidivism by Program Factors for
Probation Programs
Reductions in Recidivism
Increased Recidivism
96
Change in Recidivism by 4 Point Factor Score for
Probation Programs
Reduced Recidivism
Increased Recidivism
97
What Doesnt Work with Offenders?
98
Lakota tribal wisdom says that when you discover
you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is
to dismount. However, in corrections, and in
other affairs, we often try other strategies,
including the following

• Buy a stronger whip.
• Change riders
• Say things like This is the way we always have
  ridden this horse.
• Appoint a committee to study the horse.
• Arrange to visit other sites to see how they ride
  dead horses.
• Create a training session to increase our riding
  ability.
• Harness several dead horses together for
  increased speed.
• Declare that No horse is too dead to beat.
• Provide additional funding to increase the
  horses performance.
• Declare the horse is better, faster, and
  cheaper dead.
• Study alternative uses for dead horses.
• Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.

99
Ineffective Approaches

• Programs that cannot maintain fidelity
• Drug prevention classes focused on fear and other
  emotional appeals
• Shaming offenders
• Drug education programs
• Non-directive, client centered approaches
• Bibliotherapy
• Freudian approaches
• Talking cures
• Self-Help programs
• Vague unstructured rehabilitation programs
• Medical model
• Fostering self-regard (self-esteem)
• Punishing smarter (boot camps, scared straight,
  etc.)

100
The Fidelity Principle Make Sure Programs Are
Delivered With Fidelity and Integrity
101
Program Integrity and Recidivism

• Every major study we have done has found a strong
  relationship between program integrity and
  recidivism
• Higher integrity score greater the reductions
  in recidivism

102
Program IntegrityRelationship Between Program
Integrity Score And Treatment Effect for
Community Supervision Programs
Reduced Recidivism
Increased Recidivism
103
Program IntegrityRelationship Between Program
Integrity Score And Treatment Effect for
Residential Programs
Reduced Recidivism
Increased Recidivism
70
31-59
60-69
0-30
104
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

105
Important Considerations

• Offender assessment is the engine that drives
  effective programs
• helps you know who what to target
• Design programs around empirical research
• helps you know how to target offenders
• Program Integrity make a difference
• Service delivery, disruption of criminal
  networks, training/supervision of staff,
  support for program, QA, evaluation