New Staff Orientation

1. New Staff Orientation Reducing Recidivism Through Evidence-based Practices

2. What works in reducing or changing criminal behavior?

3. Let’s Look at History • 1970s – “Nothing Works” • 1980s – Deterrence and punishment • 1990s – Meta-analysis “What Works” - Incapacitation with Treatment • 2000s – Evidence-based practices

4. Best Practices, What Works, Evidence-based PracticesWhat is the difference?

5. Best Practices • Based on collective, individual experience • Not necessarily based on scientifically tested knowledge • Does not imply attention to outcomes, evidence, or measurable standards; often based on word of mouth evidence

6. What Works • Points to general outcomes • High risk offenders • Cognitive-behavioral approach • Criminogenic needs • Meta-analytic Review • Analysis of large number of studies

7. Cognitive-behavioral Approach • Help the offender to change the attitudes and thinking patterns that contribute to criminal behavior • Replace with pro-social and non-criminal thinking and behavior

8. Evidence-based Practices • Getting at a specific result • Cognitive-behavioral treatment is effective in reducing recidivism with high risk offenders. • Coercive treatment works in reducing substance abuse • Is measurable

9. Over 20 years of research has clearly demonstrated that correctional treatment programs can significantly reduce recidivism • The most effective programs meet certain empirically derived principles

10. Principles of Effective Intervention • Risk Principle – target higher risk offenders (WHO) • Need Principle – target criminogenic risk/need factors (WHAT) • Treatment Principle – use behavioral approaches (HOW)

11. 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

12. Higher Risk versus Lower Risk Offenders: Results from Meta-Analyses of Behavioral Programs Source: Gendreau, P., French, S.A. and A. Taylor (2002). What Works (What Doesn’t Work) Revised 2002. Invited submission to the International Community Corrections Association Monograph Series Project.

13. Recent Study of Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision in Canada Bonta, J et al., 2000. A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program., Vol. 27 No 3:312-329. Criminal Justice and Behavior

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

15. Targeting Criminogenic Need: Results from Meta-Analyses Reduction in Recidivism Increase in Recidivism Source: Gendreau, P., French, S.A., and A.Taylor (2002). What Works (What Doesn’t Work) Revised 2002. Invited Submission to the International Community Corrections Association Monograph Series Project

16. Criminogenic Need Factors that contribute to criminal behavior: • Dysfunctional family relationships • Anti-social peers • Anti-social attitudes, values and beliefs that support crime (e.g. non-conforming, anti-authority, hostility) • Substance abuse • Low self control

17. Treatment Principle The most effective interventions are behavioral: • Focus on current factors that influence behavior • Action oriented • Offender behavior is appropriately reinforced

18. Behavioral vs. NonBehavioral Reduced Recidivism Increased Recidivism Andrews, D.A. 1994. An Overview of Treatment Effectiveness. Research and Clinical Principles, Department of Psychology, Carleton University. The N refers to the number of studies.

19. Most Effective Behavioral Models • Structured social learning where new skills and behavioral are modeled • Cognitive behavioral approaches that target criminogenic risk factors • Family based approaches that train family on appropriate techniques

20. Non-Behavioral Approaches • Drug prevention classes focused on fear and other emotional appeals • Shaming offenders • Drug education programs • Non-directive, client centered approaches • Bibliotherapy • Freudian approaches • Talking cures • Self-Help programs • Vague unstructured rehabilitation programs • Medical model • Fostering self-regard (self-esteem) • “Punishing smarter” (boot camps, scared straight, etc.)

21. What Doesn’t Work (Not Research Supported) • Targeting low risk offenders • Targeting non-criminogenic needs • Punishment sanctions only • Shock incarceration/probation • Insight-oriented psychotherapy • Home detention with electronic monitoring only • Encounter type program models • Challenge/self-discipline programs • Routine probation supervision practices

22. RECENT STUDY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS IN OHIO • Largest study of community based correctional treatment facilities ever done • 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 • We also examined program characteristics

23. Experimental Groups: • 3,737 offenders released from prison in FY 99 and placed in one of 37 Halfway Houses in Ohio • 3,629 offenders direct sentenced to one of 15 CBCFs Control Group: • 5,855 offenders released from prison onto parole supervision during the same time period • Offenders were matched based on offense level & county of sentence

24. Determination of Risk • Each offender was given a risk score based on 14 items that predicted outcome. • Compared low risk offenders who were placed in a program to low risk offenders that were not, high risk to high risk, and so forth.

25. What did they find with regard to the Risk Principle?

26. 9 8 6 5 4 3 3 2 1 1 0 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -4 -4 -4 -5 -5 -6 -7 -7 -11 -11 -11 -15 -21 -21 -21 -21 -29 -36

27. 11 11 10 10 9 7 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 0 -1 -1 -2 -3 -4 -6 -7 -10 -10 -11 -12 -14 -14 -19 -23 -23 -36

28. 19 18 13 13 12 10 9 9 8 8 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 0 -1 -2 -6 -7 -13 -14 -20 -26 -28

29. 34 32 30 27 25 24 22 21 15 13 13 13 12 12 12 9 10 10 8 8 7 5 6 2 3 3 3 -2 -2 -6 -6 -14 -15 -18 -34

30. HWH by Geographic Setting by Incarceration for Low Risk Offenders

31. HWH by Geographic Setting by Incarceration for High Risk Offenders

32. Recidivism by Risk Category and Group for Sex Offenders (n=390) Recidivism = incarcerated in a penal institution. Ohio ½ and CBCF study

33. Recidivism Rates for Parole Violators Ohio ½ and CBCF study

34. Evidence-Based Principles Collaboration Organizational Development National Institute of CorrectionsImplementing Evidence-based Principles in Community Corrections

35. Eight Evidence-Based Principles for Effective Interventions Measure Outcomes Provide Ongoing Support Provide Positive Reinforcement Address Cognitive-Behavioral Functioning Provide Quality Assurance Target Interventions Enhance Offender Motivation Assess Offender Risk and Needs

36. Eight Evidence-Based Principles for Effective Interventions Assess Offender Risk and Needs

37. Assess Offender Risk & Need • What predicts criminal behavior? • Anti social attitudes • Anti-social peers • Substance abuse • Low self-control • Anti-social attitudes and values (Gendreau 1992 & 1997, Andrews & Bonta, 1998, Harland, 1996, Sherman, 1998, McGuirre, 2001-2002, Elliot, 2001, Lipton, 2000)

38. Assess Offender Risk & Need • How do we measure these predictors? • Risk Instruments – • Offender Screening Tool (OST) • Field Re-assessment of the Offender Screening Tool (FROST) • Modified Offender Screening Tool (M-OST) • Stable & Static 99 • SARA & DVSI • Need Instruments – • Adult Substance Use Survey (ASUS)

39. Assess Offender Risk & Need • How should we use these results? • Provides information to develop offender case plan • Establishes supervision level • Identifies targeted needs for intervention • Provides baseline and measure of change in offender

40. Assess Risk & Needs • Officer Responsibilities • Review assessments with offender • Incorporate into case plan • Re-assess and measure change

41. Eight Evidence-Based Principles for Effective Interventions Enhance Offender Motivation Assess Offender Risk and Needs

42. Enhance Offender Motivation • For lasting change to occur, there needs to be a level of intrinsic motivation • Research strongly suggest that motivational interviewing effectively enhances motivation for initiating and maintaining change behavior. (Miller & Rollnick, 2002; et. al.)

43. Enhance Offender Motivation • Officer Responsibilities: • Use evidence-based verbal and non-verbal communication skills: • Attending, reflections, summarizations, open-ended questions, etc. • Explore offender’s attitude toward change • Avoid non-productive arguing and blaming • Encourage praise, be optimistic

44. Eight Evidence-Based Principles for Effective Interventions Target Interventions Enhance Offender Motivation Assess Offender Risk and Needs

45. Target Interventions • Risk Principle: Prioritize supervision and treatment resources for high risk offenders • Need principle: Target intervention to criminogenic needs • Treatment Principle: Behavioral approach • Responsivity Principle • Match treatment type to offender • Matching treatment provider to offender • Matching style and methods of communication with offender’s stage of change readiness

46. Target Interventions • Dosage • Evidence shows that high risk offenders initially need 40% to 70% of their time in the community occupied over a three to nine month period • Incomplete dosage can have a negative effect and waste resources

47. Results from a Recent Study of Treatment “Dosage” in a Prison Setting • 620 Incarcerated Males • Three variations in Cognitive Behavioral Treatment: • 100 hours • 200 hours • 300 hours • Comprehensive assessments were conducted and offenders assigned based on risk level and needs • Recidivism defined as incarceration (either a new conviction or revocation); one year follow-up. • Overall, the treatment group received an average of 150 hours of treatment, which reduced recidivism 10% • Dosage of treatment however, appears to be an important factor:

48. Dosage Continued: • Reductions in recidivism increased between 1.2% to 1.7% for each additional 20 hours of treatment • For Moderate risk offenders with few needs, 100 hours was sufficient to reduce recidivism • For High risk offenders with multiple needs, longer programs are required to significantly reduce recidivism • A 100 hour program had no effect on high risk offenders • For offenders deemed appropriate (i.e. either high risk or multiple needs, but not both), it appears that 200 hours are required to significantly reduce recidivism • If the offender is high risk & has multiple needs it may require in excess of 300 hours of treatment to affect recidivism

49. Target Interventions • Treatment Principles: • Proactive and strategic case planning • Treatment, particularly cognitive-behavioral should be applied • Targeted, timely treatment provides the greatest long-term benefit • Does not necessarily apply to lower risk offenders and can have detrimental effects (Andrews & Bonta, 1998, Petersilia, 1997 & 2002, Taxman & Byrne, 2001)

50. Officer Responsibilities • Based on risk & needs assessment, make appropriate referrals to address needs (Responsivity) • Set appropriate limits and provide clear direction to the offender • Know the treatment dosage of your referral. (Dosage)