1 / 39

TAKING IT TO THE NEXT LEVEL: Core Correctional Practices

TAKING IT TO THE NEXT LEVEL: Core Correctional Practices. Paula Smith, Ph.D. School of Criminal Justice College of Education, Criminal Justice and Human Services University of Cincinnati Presented at the Annual Meeting of the IACCAC Indianapolis, IN November 2012. Correctional Paradigms.

morag
Download Presentation

TAKING IT TO THE NEXT LEVEL: Core Correctional Practices

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. TAKING IT TO THE NEXT LEVEL:Core Correctional Practices Paula Smith, Ph.D. School of Criminal Justice College of Education, Criminal Justice and Human Services University of Cincinnati Presented at the Annual Meeting of the IACCAC Indianapolis, IN November 2012

  2. Correctional Paradigms

  3. Rehabilitation Paradigm Rehabilitation should be undertaken as part of a coherent paradigm and consists of three components: Theoretical Framework (Criminological) Empirical Support (Correctional) Tools for Practitioners (Technological)

  4. CRIMINOLOGICAL COMPONENT Theoretical Framework

  5. Psychology of Criminal Conduct • The psychology of criminal conduct is based on principles of human behavior that are rooted in behavioral, cognitive and social learning theories. • This approach seeks to provide an theoretical, empirical and practical understanding of criminal behavior.

  6. CORRECTIONAL COMPONENT The Contributions of Meta-Analysis and the Principles of Effective Intervention

  7. Principles of Effective Intervention:The RNR Framework

  8. The Risk Principle If you intend to reduce recidivism, then it is critical to focus on the offenders who are most likely to re-offend! Assess and identify higher risk offenders. Deliver greater dosage of treatment to higher risk offenders.

  9. The Risk Principle Avoid including lower risk offenders in more intense (or restrictive) services as it is likely to increase recidivism rates. WHY? We disrupt protective factors. We expose them to higher risk peers. We also force them to interact with us…

  10. The Need Principle Criminal History Antisocial Attitudes/Cognitive-Emotional States Antisocial Peers Temperamental and Personality Factors ______________________________________________________ Family and Marital Factors Education and Employment Substance Abuse Leisure and Recreation

  11. The Responsivity Principle Use cognitive-behavioral strategies to decrease antisocial behaviors and increase prosocial behaviors. Match the style and mode of service to key offender characteristics and learning styles.

  12. Taking Stock of thePrinciples of Effective Intervention Smith, Gendreau and Swartz (2009) • There are more than 40 published meta-analyses of the correctional treatment literature. • Results have been replicated with remarkable consistency; there is considerable support for the RNR framework across quantitative reviews of the literature.

  13. Core Correctional Practices Gendreau, Andrews and Theriault (2010) Effective Reinforcement Effective Disapproval Effective Use of Authority Cognitive Restructuring Anti-Criminal Modeling/Structured Skill Building Problem Solving Relationship Skills/Motivational Interviewing

  14. Relationship Skills in Mandated Treatment Skeem et al. (2007) CARING AND FAIRNESS TRUST AUTHORITATIVE (VERSUS AUTHORITARIAN)

  15. Relationship Skills in Correctional Settings Spiegler and Guevremont (2010) …the therapist-client relationship is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of treatment (p. 9).

  16. Core Correctional Practices Staff members should view themselves as agents of change and support the goals of offender rehabilitation.

  17. TECHNOLOGICAL COMPONENT Technology Transfer and the Diffusion of Innovation

  18. Demonstration Projects vs. Routine Programs • Previous research has found a difference in the average effect size for demonstration projects vs. routine programs in corrections. • Egg et al. (2000) • Lab and Whitehead (1990) • Lipsey (1999) • Lowenkamp et al. (2006) • Ortmann (2000)

  19. Demonstration Projects vs. Routine Programs • The UC database now contains more than 680 evaluations of individual programs/correctional agencies. • Unfortunately, the vast majority (64%) do not receive a passing grade.

  20. UC Program Evaluation Research:Adult Residential Programs • We examined the program level characteristics correlated with outcome in three major studies involving several hundred programs and more than 40,000 offenders.

  21. Adult Residential Programs:Treatment • Criminogenic needs are targeted. • Cognitive-behavioral approaches are used. • Facilitators use structured skill building exercises with clients. • Modeling and role playing skills • Graduated rehearsal • Offenders are supervised in treatment and the community. • Intensity and duration of services are varied by risk and need.

  22. Adult Residential Programs:Evaluation • The program collects recidivism data on participants. • The program has conducted an outcome evaluation. • External quality assurance protocols have been established. • File reviews are regularly conducted. • Offenders complete pre/post tests to document change.

  23. Adult Residential Programs:Overall Results • Results indicated that there was a strong correlation between program level characteristics and reductions in recidivism (r = .60). • All the areas matter, but assessment, treatment and implementation were particularly important.

  24. UC Program Evaluation Research:Adult Community-Based Programs • We examined the program level characteristics correlated with outcome in more than two hundred adult community-based programs and 13,000 offenders. • Sample included both misdemeanants and felons under community supervision. • Specific programs included day reporting centers, work release, ISP, and EM.

  25. Adult Community-Based Programs:Program Level Characteristics

  26. Adult Community-Based Programs:Four Factors • 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 (averaged longer periods of supervision than lower 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 lower risk)

  27. PROGRAM INTEGRITY – In all three studies… • IT MATTERED. • It can be changed. • Good programs (based on sound theory) can substantially reduce recidivism. However, the same program poorly implemented can actually increase recidivism.

  28. Program Implementation Evidence-Based Practice Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment “They know the words but not the music.” Edward Latessa (2010)

  29. Program Implementation

  30. Specific Gaps in Program Implementation ALL corrections professional should view themselves as agents of change. It is critical to understand that short-term compliance does not necessarily translate into long-term behavioral change. It is critical to take advantage of teachable moments in order to encourage offenders to generalize skills beyond the treatment setting.

  31. Specific Gaps in Program Implementation • Administering a risk assessment ≠ Using the results • Identifying a domain ≠ Generating an individualized treatment plan • Implementing a structured treatment manual ≠ CBT program • Training staff ≠ Proficiency in skills related to service delivery

  32. Overview of Implementation Projects

  33. Phase I:Curriculum Development/Program Design • A Multidisciplinary Implementation Team (MIT) is established at each site to plan and monitor the implementation of new program elements. • The MIT should incorporate at least one member from each discipline/job title that has regular contact with program participants. • Administration • Supervisors • Clinicians and group facilitators • Case managers • Security staff • Training and/or quality assurance coordinators

  34. Phase I:Curriculum Development/Program Design • Sub-committees are developed to focus on four key implementation areas: • Assessment and case management • Structured treatment curricula and program schedule • Behavior modification system • Training and quality assurance • The UCCI plays an active role in this process to ensure that planned changes are consistent with evidence-based practices and the program model.

  35. Phase II:Training • Training hours and topics vary based on program needs. • The UCCI provides the majority of the training, but the MIT assists with instruction on specific program elements.

  36. Phase III:Implementation and Coaching • During this phase, modified program components are piloted with staggered implementation. • On-site and videoconference coaching are provided on a regular basis (weekly to monthly, depending on phase and need), and includes observation of service delivery with feedback. • Implementation teams meet regularly to monitor progress and provide feedback.

  37. Phase IV:Quality Improvement • MIT continues to meet in order to review progress and sort out logistics and make further modifications if needed. • On-site and videoconference coaching sessions continue to be provided at this stage. • The UCCI focuses on individuals responsible for supervision and oversight of the program in order to ensure fidelity over time.

  38. Phase IV:Quality Improvement • Several feedback mechanisms are also established: • Surveys of participant and staff satisfaction • Exit evaluations • Standardized assessments to measure client progress in treatment • Structured staff evaluations of skills associated with service delivery

  39. Contact Information Paula Smith, Ph.D. Director, Corrections Institute Center for Criminal Justice Research University of Cincinnati (513) 556-5836 paula.smith@uc.edu

More Related