Transcript RIsk Needs Responsivity PPT APPA Keynote

If We’re Serious About
Recidivism, How Can We Reduce
the Gap in Service Provision?
July 26, 2011
Faye S. Taxman, Ph.D.
Stephanie A. Ainsworth, M.A.
Erin L. Crites, M.A.
Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence (ACE!)
George Mason University
Avinash Singh Bhati, Ph.D.
Maxarth, LLC
James M. Byrne, Ph.D.
April Pattavina, Ph.D.
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology
University of Massachusetts, Lowell
Edward Banks, Ph.D.
Knowledge Management Coordinator
Bureau of Justice Assistance
2
Acknowledgements
• Bureau of Justice Assistance
• Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
• Public Welfare Foundation
3
• Client is arrested for a DWI with a BAC of .15
• Classified as low risk based on agency’s validated
risk assessment instrument
• Workshop instructor states that individual
should be treated as a high risk for supervision
purposes based on the high BAC.
4
The REAL Problem
• Lots of ways to do correctional programming, but no
set principles
• Risk and Needs are often confused
• There are no clear guidelines about assigning
offenders to controls or treatment
• The guidelines can be recidivism based, if we had
the data
• The RNR is complicated and hard to follow
5
Learning Objectives
• Rate Your Population
▫ Identify the factors associated with offending
• Effective Interventions
▫ Identify how to appropriately respond to those factors
to reduce recidivism and improve offender outcomes
• Rate Your Programs
▫ Identify appropriate program options to reduce
correctional costs without jeopardizing public safety
• Town Hall Discussion
6
Rate Your Population:
Factors Associated with Offending
• Empirically Based
▫ Static Risk
▫ Criminogenic Need>>>Dynamic Risks>>>>Linked to Criminal Behavior
 Drug Dependency
 Criminal lifestyle
• Clinically Relevant
▫ Destabilizers
 Drug Abuse or Alcohol Dependence
 Mental Health History
▫ Stabilizers





No Criminal Networks (friends & family)
Stable Housing
Full-Time Employment
Family Support
Education
7
Simplify the Criteria:
• Risk: Identify Offenders with an Extensive and
Early Onset Criminal History (Static Risk Level)
• Need #1: Identify Offenders who are Drug
Dependent or who Present Multiple Criminal
Lifestyle Factors (Criminogenic Need Level)
• Need #2: Identify Offenders with Potential
Destabilizing and Stabilizing Factors
Static Risk
Step One: Know the Risk Level
9
Risk Principle: High- to Moderate-Risk
offenders should be prioritized for placement in
treatment and control programs
• Offenders vary by level of probability of recidivism –
Static Risk
• Risk is static or unidirectional
▫ Risk stays the same or increases; it can not be reduced
• Risk factors are gathered from criminal history
information
▫ Age at first arrest, number of prior arrests, number of prior
probation/parole events, number of probation/parole
revocations, attempted/successful escapes from custody
10
Risk Level
(Classification 1)
100.0%
90.0%
77.2%
80.0%
66.0%
70.0%
60.0%
53.6%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Low Risk
24.1%
Moderate Risk
52.2%
High Risk
23.7%
11
Discussion
• What is the biggest struggle when considering
static risk?
▫ For you, for your agency?
• Where does risk fall short?
Criminogenic Needs
Reducing the Complexity
13
Need Principle: Criminogenic Needs
should be the primary focus of treatment,
control and programming
• Criminogenic Needs are dynamic factors & link
with offending behavior
• Reducing criminogenic needs reduces recidivism
• Target the key ones, and consider severity
14
Psychosocial functioning
Criminogenic Needs
Criminal Personality
Substance Dependence
Mental Health
Employment
Education
Housing
Family Dysfunction
Antisocial Peers
Substance Abuse
Family CJ Involvement
Location (Crime Area)
Low Self Control
Antisocial Values
Contributes to Criminal Behavior
*Items in boxes are included in our data measures
15
Easily Identifiable Criminogenic Needs
• Drug Dependence
▫ Early age of first use of drugs, regular use of drugs associated with
offending behavior (criminogenic drugs - crack, cocaine, heroin,
other opiates, methamphetamine, other amphetamines), use of
criminogenic drugs at time of offense
• 3+ Criminal Lifestyle Indicators
▫ Criminal Networks
 Family or friends engaged in criminal activity
▫ Family Support
 Lack of visits, calls, or mail from children while incarcerated; receiving
financial support from family members prior to arrest
▫ Employment
 Not employed full time prior to arrest
▫ Education
 Less than a high school diploma
▫ Housing
 Unstable (homeless) prior to arrest
▫ Offenders who present 3+ have higher need and should be
targeted for more intensive services.
16
What do we know about Criminogenic
Needs
• ~9% of the prison and jail sample present with
drug dependence
• 24.7% have 3 or more criminal lifestyle needs
17
Risk Level by Dynamic Need
(Classification 2)
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
No Dependence, <3
Criminal Lifestyle
Indicators
3+ Criminal Lifestyle
Indicators
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
Drug Dependence
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Low Risk
Moderate Risk
High Risk
18
Rearrest Rates by Risk Level by Dynamic
Need (Classification 2)
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
No Dependence, <3
Criminal Lifestyle
Indicators
3+ Criminal Lifestyle
Indicators
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
Drug Dependence
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Low Risk
Moderate Risk
High Risk
19
BUT… there are other variables which
are clinically relevant
• Drug Abuse/Alcohol Dependence
▫ Older age of first use, non-regular use of criminogenic
drugs, use of drugs at time of arrest, (but not
criminogenic drugs)
▫ Age of first drink, drinking at time of arrest, arrested
because of alcohol use, disruptions to work or
relationships due to alcohol use.
• Mental Health History
▫ Ever diagnosed with a MH disorder, ever taken
medication for mental condition, ever admitted to or
stayed overnight in a mental health hospital, ever
received counseling from a trained professional, ever
received other mental health treatment services
20
Presence of Destabilizer
• 71.3% of the prison and jail sample report drug
abuse or alcohol dependence
▫ 69% report both drug abuse and alcohol
dependence
• 6.3% report a history of mental health concerns
21
Risk and Destabilizers for Drug
Dependent Individuals (Classification 3)
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
Drug Dependent, No
Destabilizers
Drug Dependent, 1
Destabilizer
Drug Dependent, 2
Destabilizers
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Low Risk
Moderate Risk
High Risk
22
Recidivism Rate by Risk and Destabilizers for
Drug Dependent Individuals (Classification 3)
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
Drug Dependent, No
Destabilizers
Drug Dependent, 1
Destabilizer
Drug Dependent, 2
Destabilizers
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Low Risk
Moderate Risk
High Risk
23
Risk and Destabilizers for Individuals with 3+
Criminal Lifestyle Indicators (Classification 3)
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
3+ Criminal Lifestyle
Indicators, No
Destabilizers
3+ Criminal Lifestyle
Indicators, 1 Destabilizer
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
3+ Criminal Lifestyle
Indicators, 2 Destabilizers
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Low Risk
Moderate Risk
High Risk
24
Rearrest Rates by Risk and Destabilizers for Individuals
with 3+ Criminal Lifestyle Indicators (Classification 3)
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
3+ Criminal Lifestyle
Indicators, No
Destabilizers
3+ Criminal Lifestyle
Indicators, 1 Destabilizer
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
3+ Criminal Lifestyle
Indicators, 2 Destabilizers
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Low Risk
Moderate Risk
High Risk
25
Rearrest Rates by Risk by Need by
Destabilizer (Classification 3)
100.00%
Low Risk
90.00%
Moderate Risk
80.00%
High Risk
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
No Needs, No No Needs, 1 No Needs, 2
Destabilizers Destabilizer Destabilizers
3+ Crim
3+ Crim
3+ Crim
Substance
Substance
Substance
Lifestyle
Lifestyle
Lifestyle
Dependent, Dependent, 1 Dependent, 2
Indicators, Indicators, 1 Indicators, 2
No
Destabilizer Destabilizers
No
Destabilizer Destabilizers Destabilizers
Destabilizers
26
Reflection
• Does this match what you see in practice?
• What other factors are important?
27
Stabilizers
•
•
•
•
•
Family Support
Educated
Full-time employment
Lack of Criminal Networks
Stable Housing
**Considered in good shape with 4+ present
• 43.6% of the combined prison and jail sample report
having 4+ stabilizing indicators
28
Risk by Stabilizer for (classification 4)
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
<4 Stabilizers
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
4+ Stabilizers
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Low Risk
Moderate Risk
High Risk
29
Rearrest Rates by Risk by Stabilizer for
(classification 4)
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
<4 Stabilizers
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
4+ Stabilizers
10.0%
0.0%
Low Risk
Moderate Risk
High Risk
So What is Responsivity?
The Program Categories
31
Responsivity Principle: matching of clients to
programs and supervision based on their
identified risks and needs.
• Balance between supervision to respond to risk
and treatment programming to address needs.
• Program setting, dosage, implementation,
philosophy, and quality important influences on
outcomes.
32
Program Characteristics
• Restriction-restrictions (including the setting of the
program) are viewed as tools used by criminal justice agents
to assist in stabilizing, monitoring, and supporting offenders
in their efforts to change their behavior
• Dosage-combination of frequency, length of sessions,
duration of the intervention, and length of aftercare
• Content-use of empirically supported treatment
philosophies and evidence based practices.
• Fidelity-principles of effective interventions including
integrity and quality (Lowencamp, Latessa, & Smith, 2009)
Lowenkamp, C. T., Latesa, E. J. & Smith, P. (2008). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of
effective intervention. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 575-594.
33
Moderate
Intensive
Daily
Restrictions
Moderate
Daily
Restrictions
Low
Risk Level
High
Liberty Restrictions by Risk Level
Punishment
Only
Low Daily
Restrictions
34
• Identify promising correctional programs supported
by the literature
• Meta-analytic techniques are the strongest evidence
since they summarize the literature
• ACE! “collaboratory” to identify and code systematic
reviews to identify known effect sizes
• To date Aos, Miller, and Drake (2006) have
identified multiple promising programs including:
CBT-based programs, adult drug courts, and
Therapeutic Communities followed by aftercare.
Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal
Justice Costs and Crime Rates. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
35
Expected Reductions in Recidivism
• Programs:
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
CBT and CBT based programs (6.8%-31.2%)a
Therapeutic Communities (5.3% no aftercare to 6.9% with aftercare) a
Specialized Courts (10.7% drug courts) a
Sex Offender Treatment
Intensive Manualized Drug Treatment
Half Back Programs
Outpatient Drug Treatment
• Supervision Tools
▫
▫
▫
▫
Electronic Monitoring
Motivational Interviewing
Drug Testing
Intensive Supervision (17.9%-21.9% when paired with treatment)a
Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future
Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs and Crime Rates. Olympia: Washington State
Institute for Public Policy.
36
Program Categories
• Category A: Intensive daily restrictions on behavior with 3+ hours a day in a setting;
deals with High Risk and Substance Abuse Dependent or 3+ Criminogenic Needs.
• Category B: Moderate daily restrictions on behavior with services multiple times a
week; deals with High Risk with <3 Criminogenic Needs
• Category C: Low daily restrictions on behavior with multiple times a month services;
deals with Moderate Risk with Drug Dependence or 3+ Criminogenic Needs
• Category D: Weekly restrictions on behavior; for Moderate Risk with Drug Use or
Alcohol Dependence and Low Risk with 3+ Criminogenic Needs or Drug Dependence
• Category E: Weekly restrictions on behavior for Low Risk with Drug Use or Alcohol
Dependence
• Category F: Punishment only for Low Risk with <3 Criminogenic Needs
37
Program Category A
• Includes individuals classified as high risk with drug dependence or 3+
criminal lifestyle factors.
• Approximately 4.7% of the sample
• Programs include:
▫ CBT-3 or more hours per day, 5 days per week, for at least 90 days, plus aftercare.
▫ Therapeutic community- 3 or more hours per day, 5 or more days per week, for at
least 9 months, in a highly structured environment, plus community based
reentry services and tapered aftercare.
▫ Specialized court- 3 hours per day, five days a week, at least 12 months.
▫ Intensive manualized drug treatment-at least 3 hours per day, five days a week, at
least 9 months.
▫ Sex offender treatment-at least 3 hours daily, combining intensive individual and
group counseling as appropriate.
▫ Half-back programs-at least 3 hours per day.
• Supervision tools: used to manage compliance and address public safety.
38
Program Category B
• Includes individuals classified as high risk with <3 criminogenic needs
• Approximately 9.3% of the sample
• Programs include:
▫ CBT based programming-one or more hours at least 2-4 times weekly, lasting
about 90 days, followed by aftercare.
▫ Specialized court-lasting at least 12 months.
▫ Intensive manualized drug treatment-2 or more hours session, 3 or more days per
week, at least 9 months.
▫ Sex offender treatment-at least 2 hours per session, at least 3 days a week,
combining intensive individual and group counseling as appropriate.
▫ Work release—behavior restricted when not engaged in employment-related
activities outside of the facility.
▫ Educational, vocational, or employment-2-4 days a week for at least 2 hours each
session .
• Supervision tools used to manage compliance and address public safety
(lower levels of restriction from A).
39
Program Category C
• Includes individuals classified as moderate risk with drug dependence or 3+
criminogenic needs
• Approximately 18.8% of the sample
• Programs include:
▫ CBT based programming-1+hours per week, lasting about 90 days.
▫ Educational, vocational, or employment programs that include activities once per
week for 1+hours each session.
▫ Specialized court-1+ hours per session weekly, lasting at least 6 months, could be
supported by more frequent group treatment sessions as needed.
▫ Manualized drug treatment-1+ hours per session, weekly extends for 6 months
and could be supported by more frequent group substance abuse sessions as
needed.
▫ Sex offender treatment-2+ hours, at least weekly and combining intensive
individual and group counseling as appropriate.
• Supervision tools used to manage compliance and address public safety
(lower levels of restriction from B).
40
Program Category D
• Includes individuals classified as moderate risk with drug use
or alcohol dependence and low risk with 3+ criminogenic
needs or drug dependence
• Approximately 23.5% of the sample.
• Programs include:
▫ Outpatient drug treatment-at least 1 hour/week on a weekly
basis, which may be supported by attendance at group substance
abuse treatment sessions or at self-help groups.
▫ Substance abuse group counseling at least weekly.
▫ CBT based programming-one hour/week lasting about 90 days.
▫ Educational, vocational, or employment programs that include
activities once per week for around 1 hour each session.
• Supervision tools used to manage compliance and address
public safety (lower levels of restriction from C).
41
Program Category E
• Includes individuals classified as moderate risk with no substance use or
criminogenic needs (with stabilizers) or low risk with drug use or alcohol
dependence.
• Approximately 37.4% of the sample.
• Programs include:
▫
▫
▫
▫
Substance abuse group counseling 2-3 times per month, as needed.
Psycho-educational services.
Drug/alcohol abuse/use education.
CBT based programming-one hour about 2-3 times per month, and over the
course of at about 90 days
▫ Educational, vocational, or employment programs that include activities as
needed.
▫ Referrals for treatment services or community educational/vocational, literacy,
ESL or other such programs with no or limited requirments for attendance
• Supervision tools used to manage compliance and address public safety
(lower levels of restriction from D).
42
Program Category F
• Includes individuals classified as low risk with <3
criminogenic needs.
• Approximately 6.2% of the sample.
• Includes fines, community service, restitution, shock
incarceration, and other criminal justice sanctions
with the sole purpose of being punitive and
retributive.
• Likely to include some form of supervision, but with
no additional services to assist the offender in
managing criminogenic needs.
43
Percent of Program Category within Static
Risk Level
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
Low Risk
Moderate Risk
High Risk
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
A
B
C
D
E
F
44
Percent Rearrested by Program Category and Static
Risk Level-Actual Rates with No Programming
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
Low Risk
Moderate Risk
High Risk
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
A
B
C
D
E
F
45
Discussion
• Do the program categories clarify the differences
seen in risk levels?
• Questions?
46
Next Steps
• Establish expected reductions in recidivism
following appropriate program placement.
• Expanding data to include pre-trial, diversion,
and probation samples using SCPS data.
• Pilot model with data from multiple
jurisdictions.
• Model can be used at the individual or
jurisdictional level.
47
Faye S. Taxman, Ph.D.
Avinash Singh Bhati, Ph.D.
University Professor
Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence
(ACE!)
Criminology, Law and Society
George Mason University
10519 Braddock Road Suite 1900
Fairfax, VA 22032
Maxarth, LLC
509 Cedar Spring St.,
Gaithersburg, MD 20877
Stephanie A. Ainsworth, M.A.
Graduate Research Assistant
Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence
(ACE!)
Criminology, Law and Society
George Mason University
10519 Braddock Road Suite 1900
Fairfax, VA 22032
Erin L. Crites, M.A.
Graduate Research Assistant
Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence
(ACE!)
Criminology, Law and Society
George Mason University
10519 Braddock Road Suite 1900
Fairfax, VA 22032
James M. Byrne, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology
University of Massachusetts, Lowell
1 University Avenue,
Lowell, MA 01854
April Pattavina, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology
University of Massachusetts, Lowell
1 University Avenue,
Lowell, MA 01854
Edward Banks, Ph.D.
Knowledge Management Coordinator
Bureau of Justice Assistance
810 Seventh Street NW., Fourth Floor
Washington, DC 20531