Presentation Transcript

1. The Application of Evidence Based Policy and Practice in Orange County, Florida

   Gary E. Christensen, Ph. D.
2. Criminal Justice Policy and Practice should not be driven by philosophy or perspective; rather, measurable, long-term public safety outcomes that demonstrate return on the investment of scarce local $$ should be required...
3. Public safety is most often the commonly held goal; yet funding is not often tied to or driven by the realization of favorable long-term public safety outcomes
4. Often times, nearly half of a county’s budget is consumed funding local criminal justice practice; yet return on investment is neither quantified nor understood
5. Can or should everyday business practices be applied to criminal justice practice in Orange County? Should funding and support for a given program, initiative, or action be evaluated by its actual effect on risk and long-term public safety outcomes?
6. Evidence-Based Criminal Justice Policy and Practice Using scientific evidence to guide and inform efficient and effective [correctional] services. (National Institute of Corrections)
7. Business Outcomes and EBP:How do we analyze our local criminal justice population and use our analysis to implement effective and cost efficient criminal justice sanctions, interventions, and actions?
8. Proxy Screening – Orange County Corrections Department (n=3574) Higher risk of recidivism Lower risk of recidivism
9. Proxy Screening – Orange County Corrections Department (n=3574) OCCD CCD = 531 OCCD Jails = 3043 Higher risk of recidivism Lower risk of recidivism
10. Lower risk of recidivism Higher risk of recidivism Christensen, 2013
11. How best do we obtain measurable, long-term public safety outcomes that demonstrate return on the investment of scarce local $$?
12. Risk Management Strategies Incapacitation/ Incarceration Direct Contacts Supervision of Conditions Electronic Monitoring Drug Testing/ Screening Restraints Setting Limits Treatment & Programming Cooperation & Collaboration Challenging Choice Ownership & Responsibility Teaching & Supporting Self (Risk Management) Communicating/ Upholding Limits Clearly RISK CONTROL RISK REDUCTION Sanction Intervention VERSUS SHORT-TERM CONTROL LONG-TERM CHANGE BALANCE = Long-Term Public Safety
13. What Doesn’t Work? Not a single study has documented that official punishment (custody, mandatory arrest, probation, increased surveillance, etc.) has reduced recidivism rates or deterred future crime Not a single study has documented reduced recidivism resulting from clinical programs that enhance self-esteem or address only substance/alcohol abuse or mental illness
14. Impact of Punishment-Driven Strategies on Recidivism: Adults Better outcomes Poorer outcomes (Smith, Goggin, & Gendreau, 2002)
15. Impact of Sentence Length on Recidivism Better outcomes Poorer outcomes (Smith, Goggin, & Gendreau, 2002)
16. Impact of Intermediate Sanctions on Recidivism: Adults Better outcomes Poorer outcomes (Aos et al., 2001, 2006; Gendreau et al., 2000)
17. THE RISK PRINCIPLE and Jail Transition: Higher risk offenders who will transition from jail directly to a local community are targeted for the most intensive and expensive interventions while offenders posing a lower risk of re-offense are evaluated for community interventions, diversion, fast-tracking, or other less intensive and less costly alternatives to incarceration Low Level of Risk to Recidivate High
18. A Framework for Evidence-Based Decision Making in Local Criminal Justice Systems
19. Recidivism and the Application of the Risk Principle Low Level of Risk to Recidivate High How does criminogenic risk help to measure recidivism and evaluate program applications and outcomes?
20. Recidivism and Programming Low Vs. High Lowencamp & Latessa, 2004 (N=13,221)
21. Recidivism and Programming Low Vs. High Lowencamp & Latessa, 2004 (N=13,221)
22. Percent Recidivating –ALPHA participants vs. Non-participants ALPHA participants are significantly less likely than non-participants to recidivate in all gender and time categories: ALPHA participants Non-ALPHA participants 69 people in 2-year period do not recidivate due to ALPHA participation. * * * * Percent Recidivating * * * * Statistically significant difference. Data from the last two years of ALPHA.
23. An Effective Reentry/Transition System for Higher Risk Offenders INSTITUTIONAL PHASE COMMUNITY PHASE Self-develop. & Preparation Day Reporting Intake & Assessment Community Supervision COMMUNITY PLACEMENT SHORT-TERM PROGRAMMING / TRANSITION PLANNING Work Release Pre-trial Services Elec. Monitoring Community Involvement Continuum of Care Classification Risk Needs Treatment Programs Environment Transitional Facility
24. Proxy Screening – Using risk information provided by the Orange County Corrections DepartmentAre we making sound business decisions? Higher risk of recidivism Lower risk of recidivism
25. Evidence-Based Decision Making, Measurement, and Realistic Public Safety Outcomes What outcomes should we expect? Short-Term VS.Long-Term? Risk Control VS. Risk Reduction? Realistically 5 – 10% reduction in recidivism within 1 year increasing to 30% over time for higher risk offenders What we should not expect? Fewer bad events and less harm to the community does not mean no bad events or no harm to the community What data do we have to guide effective and objective measurement? How do stakeholders interact or work together to attain best possible outcomes? Who should oversee, evaluate, and enact policy/practice change related to criminal justice outcomes?
26. Criminal Justice/Public Safety Coordinating Council (CJ/PSCC) is defined by FS 951.26, has been in established in Orange County since 1992 and includes membership as outlined within the statute (a)1. The public safety coordinating council for a county shall consist of:a.  The state attorneyb. The public defenderc.  The chief circuit judged.  The chief county judgee.  The chief correctional officerf.  The sheriffg.  The state probation circuit administratorh.  The county mayor or another county commissioner as designee.i.  The director of any county probation or pretrial intervention program.j.  The director of a local substance abuse treatment program.k.  Representatives from county and state jobs programs and other community groups who work with offenders and victims.
27. Suggested Action Steps Evidence-Based Policy and Practice Implementation throughout the Orange County Criminal Justice System Formalize the role of the existing Public Safety/Criminal Justice Coordinating Council and develop a common system/mission to be utilized as a standard of evaluation Agree upon and define system outcomes such as recidivism and process measures Evaluate existing data for its usefulness Evaluate the actions and policies of stakeholder agencies Consider the use risk screening to inform evidence based decision making
28. Questions, Comments, Concerns?
29. Gary E. Christensen, Ph. D. Corrections Partners, Inc. (914) 489-1584 gchristensen@correctionspartners.com www.correctionspartners.com
30. Additional/Supporting Information
31. Proxy Effectiveness – OUTCOMES?Hawaii (n=4655)
32. All Releases and Reincarceration by Proxy Score Dutchess County, NY (N=2144) Christensen, 2013
33. Percent Re-Booked for Any Reason at some point within 12 months of Release, by RRS Maricopa County, Arizona Sample interpretation: 27% of the RRS “1s” (out of 2,595 total who scored “1”) have been re-booked within 12 months of their release. Percent recidivating within 12 months of release RRS, scaled from 0 to 6. n=1,739 n=2,595 n=5,416 n=7,562 n=8,466 n=4,393 n=1,259 N=31,430 Lower risk of recidivism Higher risk of recidivism
34. Ada County (Boise, Idaho)
35. Recidivism and Programming Low Vs. High Lowencamp & Latessa, 2004
36. Criminogenic needs reduction for higher risk offender populations
37. Linking a validated assessment of criminogenic need to case/transition plans.
38. High Price of the Shotgun Approach to Tx Right offender, wrong type of Tx Low-risk offender, inappropriate Tx Right offender, right Tx, right dosage and responsivity Right offender, right Tx, insufficient dosage and responsivity - Outer 2 rings represent Tx dollars wasted and iatrogenic effects -
39. Targeting Criminogenic Need: Results from Meta-Analyses Reduction in Recidivism Increase in Recidivism Gendreau P., French S.A., and A. Taylor (2002). What Works (What Doesn’t Work)
40. Proxy Effectiveness – OUTCOMES?Hawaii (n=4655) 963 offenders with a combined recidivism rate of approximately 28%
41. A Framework for Evidence-Based Decision Making in Local Criminal Justice Systems (April, 2010) 7 ways to reduce recidivism
42. 7 ways to reduce recidivism
43. 7 ways to reduce recidivism
44. 7 ways to reduce recidivism
45. 7 ways to reduce recidivism
46. 7 ways to reduce recidivism
47. 7 ways to reduce recidivism
48. 7 ways to reduce recidivism