1 / 131

Indiana s New Risk Assessment Systems Development and Validation

Considerable research has indicated that there are some important principles of effective correctional intervention. Two of the strongest are: - Risk principle (Who to target)- Need principle (What to target). Let's Start with the Risk Principle. Risk refers to risk of reoffending and not th

amil
Download Presentation

Indiana s New Risk Assessment Systems Development and Validation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Indiana’s New Risk Assessment Systems Development and Validation Edward Latessa School of Criminal Justice University of Cincinnati

    2. Considerable research has indicated that there are some important principles of effective correctional intervention Two of the strongest are: - Risk principle (Who to target) - Need principle (What to target)

    3. Let’s 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.

    4. There are Three Elements to the Risk Principle Target those offenders with higher probability of recidivism Provide most intensive treatment to higher risk offenders Intensive treatment for lower risk offender can increase recidivism

    5. #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

    6. Example of Targeting Higher Risk Offenders If you have100 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%

    7. Targeting Higher Risk Offenders continued: In the end, who had the lower recidivism rate?

    8. #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

    9. Results from a 2010 Study (Latessa, Sperber, and Makarios) of 689 offenders 100-bed secure residential facility for adult male felons Prison diversion program Average length of stay = 4 months Cognitive-behavioral treatment modality Average age 33 60% single, never married 43% less than high school education 80% moderate risk or higher 88% have probability of substance abuse per SASSI

    11. #3: 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

    12. We saw it clearly in our 2002 Study of Community Correctional Programs in Ohio Largest study of community based correctional treatment facilities ever done up to that time. 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

    15. We saw it in our 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

    16. Treatment Effects for Low Risk Just over 10% of the sample here---some instability in findingsJust over 10% of the sample here---some instability in findings

    17. Treatment Effects for High Risk Just over 10% of the sample here---some instability in findingsJust over 10% of the sample here---some instability in findings

    18. Average Difference in Recidivism by Risk Low risk ? recidivism by 3% Moderate risk ? recidivism by 6% High risk ? recidivism by 14%

    19. Need Principle By assessing and targeting criminogenic needs for change, agencies can reduce the probability of recidivism Criminogenic Anti social attitudes Anti social friends Substance abuse Lack employment Impulsive behavior Non-Criminogenic Anxiety Low self esteem Creative abilities Medical needs Physical conditioning

    20. Recent study of parole violators in Pennsylvania found a number of criminogenic factors related to failure* *Conducted by Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections

    21. Pennsylvania Parole Study Social 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

    22. 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)

    23. 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

    24. Pennsylvania Parole Study Life on Parole Violators were: Had unrealistic expectations about what life would be like outside of prison Had poor problem solving or coping skill Did not anticipate long term consequences of behavior Failed to utilize resources to help themselves 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

    25. 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

    26. Targeting Criminogenic Need: Results from Meta-Analyses

    27. Definitely NOT Criminogenic Needs

    33. DOGSLEDDING AS RESTORATIVE JUSTICE METHOD – London Free Press – 07/03/11 The Hollow Water First Nation, who live 200 km northeast of Winnipeg, have used dogsledding as a restorative justice program, which tries to restore relationships between victims and perpetrators in criminal cases. Exercising wilderness skills was seen as a way of rebuilding the perpetrator’s self-esteem, explained Marcel HARDESTY, restorative justice program director.

    34. 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

    35. Necessity of a Risk Assessment System Primary purpose Pretrial Bail / detention, level of supervision, case management Community supervision Level of supervision, case management Prison intake and reentry Case management

    36. Purpose of Current Study Construct a seamless risk assessment system for the State of Indiana based on Ohio’s system Assess the predictive validity using a sample of Indiana offenders

    37. Methodology

    38. Adult Data Collection Conducted face-to-face assessments Probation Community Corrections Prison (Release) Collected data from April 2009 through July 2009

    39. Adult Sample Sizes for Indiana Total project N = 1,380 Community N = 921 Prison N = 459

    40. Adult Sample Sizes for Ohio Total project N = 1387 Community supervision N = 681 Prison intake N = 427 Reentry N = 279 Also have another 280 from the intake data that we have Also have another 280 from the intake data that we have

    41. Recidivism: Adult Tracked all offenders for a minimum of 18 months Submitted data to FBI for record checks Tracking any new arrest and conviction

    42. Juvenile Data Collection Conducted face-to-face assessments Probation Residential facilities Collected data from January 2009 through June 2009

    43. Juvenile Sample Size for Indiana Total Project N = 1,192 Disposition N = 532 Residential/Reentry N = 660

    44. Juvenile Sample Sizes for Ohio Total project N = 2,457 Diversion/Detention N = 790 Disposition N = 594 Residential N = 823 Reentry N = 250 Also have another 280 from the intake data that we have Also have another 280 from the intake data that we have

    45. Recidivism: Juvenile Tracked all youth for a minimum of 12 months Juvenile and adult records were checked Counties provided follow-up data New arrest and convictions were tracked

    46. 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

    47. 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

    48. Analysis Plan For the initial tools: Assess concurrent validity Compares LSI-R and WI Risk/Need assessments to the ORAS tools Assess the predictive validity Examine relationships between: Total scores and recidivism measures Risk categories and recidivism measures Concurrent Validity: A way of determining the validity of some measure by how well it correlates with some other measure the researcher believes to be valid Concurrent Validity: A way of determining the validity of some measure by how well it correlates with some other measure the researcher believes to be valid

    49. IRAS-CST Community Supervision Risk Assessment Tool

    50. Community Supervision Sample Description

    51. Final Domains for the Community Supervision Assessment Criminal 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)

    52. Criminal History

    53. Criminal History

    54. Education, Employment, and Finances ** GED is considered a 1 ** ** GED is considered a 1 **

    55. Education, Employment, and Finances Question 2.4: Disabled or retired = 0 Not employed or employed part time =1 Quest 2.5 0 if 50 percent or more of the offender’s time is structured. This can include school, work, and structured activities Question 2.6 0 if the offender’s current financial situation is stable, if they have some savings, a source of income, and they are able to manage needs and debts reasonably well. 1 if the offender has difficulty paying bills, does not have a reasonable plan for long term management of finances, and is uncertain about how they will get by. Question 2.4: Disabled or retired = 0 Not employed or employed part time =1 Quest 2.5 0 if 50 percent or more of the offender’s time is structured. This can include school, work, and structured activities Question 2.6 0 if the offender’s current financial situation is stable, if they have some savings, a source of income, and they are able to manage needs and debts reasonably well. 1 if the offender has difficulty paying bills, does not have a reasonable plan for long term management of finances, and is uncertain about how they will get by.

    56. Family and Social Support

    57. Family and Social Support Question 3.5 0 if the offender has lived in a stable residence over the past 12 months. Stable residence includes living with family, contractual agreement (pays rent), receives mail, helps pays the bills, has key, few moves, etc. 1 if the offender has had three or more address changes in the past 12 months, or if living arrangements have otherwise not been stable Question 3.5 0 if the offender has lived in a stable residence over the past 12 months. Stable residence includes living with family, contractual agreement (pays rent), receives mail, helps pays the bills, has key, few moves, etc. 1 if the offender has had three or more address changes in the past 12 months, or if living arrangements have otherwise not been stable

    58. Neighborhood Problems These are scored primarily off of the self report questionnaire that ask the offenders about the neighborhoods in which they reside. These are scored primarily off of the self report questionnaire that ask the offenders about the neighborhoods in which they reside.

    59. Substance Use

    60. Substance Use

    61. Peer Associations Question 6.1 Of close friends: 0 none engage in criminal behavior, 1 if less than half 2 if more than half Question 6.2 Of close friends and acquaintances: 0 = little or risk of contact w/criminal Fr and Aq: actively avoids them 1 = some risk: ambivalent toward contact with criminal Fr & Aq 2 = high likelihood: actively seeks them out. Question 6.1 Of close friends: 0 none engage in criminal behavior, 1 if less than half 2 if more than half Question 6.2 Of close friends and acquaintances: 0 = little or risk of contact w/criminal Fr and Aq: actively avoids them 1 = some risk: ambivalent toward contact with criminal Fr & Aq 2 = high likelihood: actively seeks them out.

    62. Peer Associations 6.3 Use both self report and official documentation. 6.4 Criminal Activities: 0 = majority if not all time is prosocial 1 = some time prosocial, some time anti-social 2 = most time spent is of anti-social nature 6.3 Use both self report and official documentation. 6.4 Criminal Activities: 0 = majority if not all time is prosocial 1 = some time prosocial, some time anti-social 2 = most time spent is of anti-social nature

    63. Criminal Attitudes / Behavior Problems Question 7.1 0 if the offender takes no pride in their criminal behavior, shows genuine remorse, and accepts responsibility for their actions. 1 for those offenders who have some justifications or minimizations 2 those offender who attempt to justify or minimize criminal behavior, or who take responsibility but take pride in the behaviorQuestion 7.1 0 if the offender takes no pride in their criminal behavior, shows genuine remorse, and accepts responsibility for their actions. 1 for those offenders who have some justifications or minimizations 2 those offender who attempt to justify or minimize criminal behavior, or who take responsibility but take pride in the behavior

    64. Criminal Attitudes / Behavior Problems

    65. Criminal Attitudes / Behavior Problems

    66. Summary of Scoring Criminal History (8 points) Education, Employment and Finances (6 points) Family and Social Support (5 points) Neighborhood Problems (3 points) Substance Use (6 points) Peer Associations (8 points) Criminal Attitudes / Behavioral Problems (13 points) This produces a total of 49 points. A total score is 42 points.A total score is 42 points.

    67. Concurrent Validity Only 672 out of 681 of the cases had all 3 of the assessment scores. Only 672 out of 681 of the cases had all 3 of the assessment scores.

    68. Comparative Measures of Association Metric risk scores reported (not risk levels)Metric risk scores reported (not risk levels)

    69. Categories of Risk by State

    70. Males: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community Supervision Sample

    71. Females: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community Supervision Sample

    72. 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

    73. Priorities in Case Management Criminal History Education and Finances Correlation with Recidivism Criminal History r =.204 Education, Emp Fin r =.215Correlation with Recidivism Criminal History r =.204 Education, Emp Fin r =.215

    74. Priorities in Case Management Family and Social Support Neighborhood Problems Correlation with Recidivism Family and Support r =.117 Neighborhood Problems r =.200Correlation with Recidivism Family and Support r =.117 Neighborhood Problems r =.200

    75. Priorities in Case Management Substance Abuse Peers Correlation with Recidivism Substance Abuse r =.140 Neighborhood Problems r =.323Correlation with Recidivism Substance Abuse r =.140 Neighborhood Problems r =.323

    76. Priorities in Case Management Criminal Attitudes and Behavior Patterns Correlation with Recidivism Criminal Attitudes and Behavior Problems r = .241Correlation with Recidivism Criminal Attitudes and Behavior Problems r = .241

    77. The ORAS-Final Summary

    78. The ORAS-Substance Abuse and MH Domain

    79. The ORAS-Criminal Attitudes and Behavior Patterns

    80. The Community Supervision Screen IRAS-CSST Abbreviated version of the IRAS-CSST 4 items taken from the IRAS-CSST Scores range from 0 - 7 Overall Correlation with New Arrest: r =.381

    81. IRAS-CSST

    82. IRAS-CSST

    83. Males: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community Supervision Screen

    84. Females: Risk Level by Recidivism for the ORAS-CSST

    85. ORAS-PIT Prison Intake Tool

    86. Final Domains for the Prison Intake Assessment Criminal History (7 items) Education and Employment (6 items) Family and Social Support (5 items) Substance Use and Mental Health (5 items) Criminal Lifestyle (7 items)

    87. Age

    88. Criminal History

    89. Criminal History

    90. Education and Employment

    91. Education and Employment

    92. Family and Social Support

    93. Family and Social Support

    94. Substance Use and Mental Health

    95. Substance Use and Mental Health

    96. Criminal Lifestyle

    97. Criminal Lifestyle Question 7.1 0 if the offender takes no pride in their criminal behavior, shows genuine remorse, and accepts responsibility for their actions. 1 for those offenders who have some justifications or minimizations 2 those offender who attempt to justify or minimize criminal behavior, or who take responsibility but take pride in the behaviorQuestion 7.1 0 if the offender takes no pride in their criminal behavior, shows genuine remorse, and accepts responsibility for their actions. 1 for those offenders who have some justifications or minimizations 2 those offender who attempt to justify or minimize criminal behavior, or who take responsibility but take pride in the behavior

    98. Summary of Scoring Age (1 Point) Criminal History (10 points) Education and Employment (7 points) Family and Social Support (6 points) Substance Use (5 points) Criminal Lifestyle (11 points) This produces a total of 40 points.

    99. Concurrent Validity 415 out of 427 of the cases had all 3 of the assessment scores. 415 out of 427 of the cases had all 3 of the assessment scores.

    100. Comparative Measures of Association

    101. Comparative Measures of the Instruments’ Scores

    102. Males: Risk Level by Recidivism in the Prison Intake Sample

    103. Females: Risk Level by Recidivism in the Prison Intake Sample

    104. Priorities in Case Management Criminal History Education and Employment Correlation with Recidivism Criminal History r =.216 Education, Emp Fin r =.190Correlation with Recidivism Criminal History r =.216 Education, Emp Fin r =.190

    105. Priorities in Case Management Family and Social Support Substance Use/Mental Health Correlation with Recidivism Family and Support r =.222 Substance Abuse / Mental Health r =.169Correlation with Recidivism Family and Support r =.222 Substance Abuse / Mental Health r =.169

    106. Priorities in Case Management Criminal Lifestyle Correlation with Recidivism Criminal Attitudes and Behavior Problems r = .217Correlation with Recidivism Criminal Attitudes and Behavior Problems r = .217

    107. IRAS-RT Reentry Tool

    108. Final Domains for the Prison Reentry Assessment Criminal History (8 items) Social Bonds (4 items) Criminal Attitudes and Behavioral Patterns (7 items)

    109. Age

    110. Criminal History

    111. Criminal History

    112. Criminal History

    113. Social Bonds

    114. Social Bonds

    115. Criminal Attitudes / Behavioral Patterns

    116. Criminal Attitudes / Behavioral Patterns

    117. Criminal Attitudes / Behavioral Patterns

    118. Summary of Scoring Age (1 Point) Criminal History (12 points) Social Bonds (4 points) Criminal Attitudes / Behavioral Patterns (11 points) This produces a total of 28 points. A total score is 42 points.A total score is 42 points.

    119. Concurrent Validity 275 out of 279 of the cases had all 3 of the assessment scores. 275 out of 279 of the cases had all 3 of the assessment scores.

    120. Comparative Measures of Association

    121. Comparative Measures of the Instruments’ Scores

    122. The Distribution of Risk Levels for Males in the Prison Release Sample

    123. Males: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Prison Release Sample

    124. Females: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Prison Release Sample

    125. Priorities in Case Management Criminal History Social Bonds Correlation with Recidivism Criminal History r =.216 Education, Emp Fin r =.190Correlation with Recidivism Criminal History r =.216 Education, Emp Fin r =.190

    126. Priorities in Case Management Criminal Attitudes and Behavioral Problems Correlation with Recidivism Criminal Attitudes and Behavior Problems r = .217Correlation with Recidivism Criminal Attitudes and Behavior Problems r = .217

    127. Case Planning The following instruments are designed to drive case planning: The Community Supervision The Prison Intake Prison Reentry Domains & responsivity factors automatically populate the case plan Domains are prioritized by level/type

    128. Overrides Overrides should be used sparingly General rule is no more than 10 percent Should provide rational for override

    129. Training for the IRAS/IYAS 2 day on-site training Certification process Must pass video and written test Remedial process is available for those unsuccessful All certified users must be recertified in three years 1,746 staff trained on IRAS and 740 on IYAS

    130. Train the Trainer Trained on 2 day training Attended additional 2 days of training Delivered a 2 day training Certified as a trainer 17 certified IRAS trainers 15 certified IYAS trainers

    131. Next Steps: IRAS/IYAS Complete review of outcome data with Indiana samples Finalize validation and norm results for Indiana Submit final report to the Task Force this summer

    132. Advantage to IRAS/IYAS Validated on Indiana population Assessments at various decision points Non-proprietary Assessments are fully automated Training and training of trainers available Can be used for case planning and reassessment Standardizes assessment across the State

More Related