Transcript Slide 1

Risk-Need-Responsivity Simulation
Model
Presented at the American Society of Criminology’s Annual Meeting, November 17, 2010
Faye S. Taxman, Ph.D.
Stephanie A. Ainsworth, M.A.
Jillian K. Baird
James M. Byrne, Ph.D.
April Pattavina, Ph.D.
Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence (ACE!)
George Mason University
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology
University of Massachusetts, Lowell
Terri L. Hines
Edward Banks, Ph.D.
George Mason University
Avinash Singh Bhati, Ph.D.
Maxarth, LLC
Knowledge Management Coordinator
Bureau of Justice Assistance
Summary of Key Risk-Related Assumptions
• Risk Assumption # 1: High risk offenders comprise
approximately 20% of the state prison population; 80% of these
offenders are predicted to fail (re-arrest) within 3 years of release
from prison.
• Risk Assumption # 2: Moderate risk offenders comprise
approximately 50% of the state prison population; 60% of these
offenders are predicted to fail (re-arrest) within 3 years of release.
• Risk Assumption # 3: Low risk offenders comprise
approximately 30% of the state prison population; 40% of these
offenders are predicted to fail (re-arrest) within 3 years of release.
• Risk Assumption # 4: High rate re-offending: a small
proportion of all releases (12%) account for a significant proportion
(34.4%) of all crimes committed (35 or more total arrests, pre and
post release) by the release cohort (Langan & Levin, 2002). About
half of all high risk offenders are high rate offenders; high rate
offenders are rarely classified as medium or low risk.
Summary of Key Need-Related Assumptions
• Need Assumption #1: 40% of High risk offenders will have
both a significant substance abuse problem and a criminal thinking
problem that needs to be treated; in addition, these offenders will
require stabilization in one or more additional need areas (work,
family, marriage, and education).
• Need Assumption #2: 50% of High risk offenders will have
criminal thinking problems that need treatment; these offenders
will have 3+ other criminogenic needs.
• Need Assumption #3: 40% of Moderate risk offenders will
have a significant substance abuse problem and a criminal thinking
problem that needs to be treated; in addition, these offenders will
require stabilization in one or more additional need areas (work,
family, marriage, and education).
• Need Assumption #4: 50% of Moderate risk offenders will
be substance abuse dependent and have 3+ criminogenic needs.
Summary of Key Need-Related Assumptions
• Need Assumption #5: 30% of Moderate risk offenders will
have 3+ criminogenic needs that do not include substance abuse.
• Need Assumption #6: 20% of Low risk offenders will have a
significant substance abuse problem and a criminal thinking
problem that needs to be treated; in addition, these offenders will
require stabilization in one or more additional need areas (work,
family, marriage, and education).
• Need Assumption #7: 90% of High rate offenders will have a
significant criminal thinking problem that needs to be treated; in
addition, the majority of these offenders will require substance
abuse treatment and stabilization in one or more additional need
areas (work, family, marriage, and education).
Summary of Key Responsivity Assumptions
• Responsivity Assumption #1: High risk offenders who receive
treatment in at least two of designated high need areas will fail at half
the rate of high risk offenders who do not receive treatment.
• Responsivity Assumption #2: Moderate risk offenders who
receive treatment in designated high need areas will fail at half the rate
of moderate risk offenders who do not receive treatment.
• Responsivity Assumption #3: Low risk offenders who receive
treatment in designated high need areas will fail at half the rate of low
risk offenders who do not receive treatment.
• Responsivity Assumption # 4: High rate offenders who receive
treatment in at least two of designated high need areas will fail at half
the rate of high rate offenders who do not receive treatment. Reducing
failure in this subgroup of releases will have a larger overall crime
reduction effect than reducing failure among lower rate offenders.
Program Placement Categories by Offender Risk Level
Risk Level
Primary Criminogenic Need
High
Substance Abuse Dependent
# Other
Criminogenic
Needs
3+
Category A
Correction: High
Non-Criminogenic
Needs*
Category A
High
Substance Abuse Dependent
<3
Category B
Category A
Moderate
Substance Abuse Dependent
3+
Category B
Category A
Moderate
Substance Abuse Dependent
<3
Category C
Category B
Low
Substance Abuse Dependent
3+
Category B
Category B
Low
Substance Abuse Dependent
<3
Category C
Category B
High
Habitual Criminal Lifestyle (include drug dealers/gangs)
3+
Category A
Category A
High
Habitual Criminal Lifestyle (include drug dealers/gangs)
<3
Category B
Category B
Moderate
Habitual Criminal Lifestyle (include drug dealers/gangs)
3+
Category B
Category B
Moderate
Habitual Criminal Lifestyle (include drug dealers/gangs)
<3
Category C
Category B
Low
Habitual Criminal Lifestyle (include drug dealers/gangs)
3+
Category B
Category B
Low
Habitual Criminal Lifestyle (include drug dealers/gangs)
<3
Category C
Category C
High
Criminal Offending
3+
Category B
Category B
High
Criminal Offending
<3
Category C
Category C
Moderate
Criminal Offending
3+
Category D
Category B
Moderate
Criminal Offending
<3
Category E
Category E
Low
Criminal Offending
3+
Category D
Category E
Low
Criminal Offending
<3
Category F
Category E
Programming
Level
• Category A: Intensive daily restrictions on behavior with 3+ hours a
day in setting; deals with High Risk and Substance Abuse
Dependent or Criminal Behaviors with 3+ Criminogenic Needs
• Category B: Moderate daily restrictions on behavior with services
multiple times a week; deals with High Risk (<3 criminogenic
needs) and Moderate Risk with 3+ Criminogenic Needs
• Category C: Low daily restrictions on behavior with multiple times
a month services; deals with Moderate Risk with <3 criminogenic
needs
• Category D: Weekly restrictions on behavior; for Moderate Risk and
Low Risk with 3+ Criminogenic Needs or Substance Use Dependent
• Category E: Weekly restrictions on behavior for Low Risk with <3
Criminogenic Needs
• Category F: Punishment only
High Risk
Liberty Restrictions by Risk Level
Medium
Intensive
Daily
Restrictions
Low
Moderate
Daily
Restrictions
Punishment
Low Daily
Restrictions
Example of Synthetic Data Profile Attributes
ProfileID
Age
Race
Gender
Offense
Risk
Primary
Criminogenic
Need
Other
Criminogenic
Need
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
6
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
7
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
8
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
9
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
10
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
11
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
12
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
13
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
14
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
15
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
RNR Program Categorization Tool
• Measures programs according to: Restrictive Setting,
Implementation, Content, and Caliber.
• Weights of items will be determined through an
systematic reviews of effect sizes.
• Jurisdictions will rank programs upon these four
measures and match offenders appropriately.
• Trial test of RNR tool on programs within a jurisdiction.
RESTRICTIVE MEASURES
Restrictive Setting
 Prison
 Jail
 Work release/halfway house with day privileges
 Weekend requirements
 Office Setting
 Other
Restrictive Community (Court, Probation, Day Program, etc.)
(choose the highest level applicable)
 GPS or electronic monitoring
 Curfew/area or restraining order restrictions
 Day programming—3+ hours/day
 Daily contact (phone, email, person, community service )
 Weekly contact
 At least monthly
 Other, assess for amount of contact
Drug Testing
(choose one)
 Daily
 Twice a week
 Once a week
 Monthly
 Random
 None
RESTRICTIVE SCORE: ___________
QUESTIONS:
5
5
5
3
0
0
5
4
3
2
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
0
•Other Restrictive Measures?
•Suggestions on Weights?
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
Programming—Frequency of Community Service, Treatment,
Intervention
 Daily
 Twice a week
 Once a week
 Monthly
 Unspecified
 Not Applicable
Programming--Duration of Community Service, Treatment, Intervention
 More than 52 weeks
 26 to 52 weeks
 18 to 25 weeks
 13 to 17 weeks
 4 to 12 weeks
 Under 4 weeks
Programming--- Hours per Week of Community Service, Treatment,
Intervention
 More than 20 hours/week
 15 to 19 hours/ week
 10 to 14 hours/week
 5 to 9 hours/ week
 1 to 4 hours/week
 Less than 1 hour
IMPLEMENTATION SCORE: ___________
QUESTIONS:
3
3
2
1
1
0
•Other Implementation
Measures?
•Suggestions on Weights?
CONTENT MEASURES
Treatment Orientation (choose one)
 CBT
 Therapeutic community
 Drug treatment or problem solving court
 MST/MFT/ MDFT
 Employment
 Domestic violence
 Sex offender
 Other, assess for level
 No clear orientation
QUESTIONS:
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
Primary Treatment Programming (choose one)
 Substance abuse
 Substance abuse and co-occurring disorder
 Alcohol or drug education/orientation/ psychosocial Ed
 Anger management
 Antisocial values/orientation
 Domestic violence
 Generic
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
Components of Tx Programs (check all that apply)
 Anger management
 Antisocial peers/social networks
 Antisocial values and attitudes
 Family related issues
 Domestic violence
 Employment services
 Alcohol or drug education/orientation /psychosocial Ed
 Substance abuse self-support efforts (NA/AA)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rewards (choose the highest level applicable)
 Contingency management
 Credit for completion of program requirements
 Generic
 None
3
2
1
0
Punishment (choose the highest level applicable)
 Structured Sanctions
 Generic
 Unspecified
 None
2
1
1
0
•Other Content Measures?
•Suggestions on Weights?
PROGRAM CALIBER MEASURES
Staff
 Special certifications (MSW, Addictions, etc.)
 Treatment supervision
 Relevant experience
 Correctional staff without certification
 Other
5
4
3
1
0
Evaluation of the Program
 External
 Internal
 Use performance measures
 Use client satisfaction scales
 None
3
2
2
0
0
Clear Completion Criteria
 Yes
 No
1
0
Set Program Eligibility (choose the highest level applicable)
 Use risk and need assessment to determine eligibility
 Identify set criteria based on offense
 Have treatment staff assess for eligibility without risk/ need assessment
 None of the above
3
2
2
0
Exclusionary Criteria
 Exclusionary criteria always followed
 Exclusionary criteria sometimes followed
 No exclusionary criteria in program
3
1
0
Use Treatment Manual
 Use research based manual
 Use own manual
 Have treatment staff develop own sessions.
 None… Proceed to Quality Assurance Treatment Sessions
3
2
0
0
Fidelity to Treatment Program
 Treatment manual is strictly followed for all treatment sessions
 Treatment manual is a guide but staff deviate from manual
for some treatment sessions
 Treatment manual is a suggestion that staff often deviate from in treatment
Session
3
1
0
Have Quality Assurance of Tx Sessions
 Audio or videotape sessions
 Have quality assurance sessions
 Have staff review problem cases
 None
3
2
2
0
Answers to this tool verified by at least one other
individual (colleague or supervisor)?
 Yes
2
 No
0
CALIBER SCORE: __________
QUESTIONS:
•Other Program Caliber Measures?
•Should Points be Additive or
Subtractive?
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
Jillian K. Baird
Graduate Research Assistant
Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence (ACE!)
Criminology, Law and Society
George Mason University
10519 Braddock Road Suite 1900
Fairfax, VA 22032
Terri L. Hines
Graduate Research Assistant
Criminology, Law and Society
George Mason University
4400 University Drive, 4F4
Fairfax, VA 22030
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