If We’re Serious About Recidivism, How Can We Reduce the Gap in Service Provision? Faye S. Taxman, Ph.D. Stephanie A. Ainsworth, M.A. Erin L. Crites, M.A

If We’re Serious About Recidivism, How Can We Reduce the Gap in Service Provision?

Faye S. Taxman, Ph.D.Stephanie A. Ainsworth, M.A.Erin L. Crites, M.A.Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence (ACE!)George Mason University

Avinash Singh Bhati, Ph.D. Maxarth, LLC

James M. Byrne, Ph.D.April Pattavina, Ph.D.Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology University of Massachusetts, Lowell

Edward Banks, Ph.D. Knowledge Management Coordinator Bureau of Justice Assistance

July 26, 2011

2

Acknowledgements

•Bureau of Justice Assistance•Center for Substance Abuse Treatment•Public Welfare Foundation

3

•Client is arrested for a DWI with a BAC of .15

•Classified as low risk based on agency’s validated risk assessment instrument

•Workshop instructor states that individual should be treated as a high risk for supervision purposes based on the high BAC.

4

The REAL Problem• Lots of ways to do correctional programming, but no

set principles

• Risk and Needs are often confused

• There are no clear guidelines about assigning offenders to controls or treatment

• The guidelines can be recidivism based, if we had the data

• The RNR is complicated and hard to follow

5

Learning Objectives• Rate Your Population

▫ Identify the factors associated with offending

• Effective Interventions▫ Identify how to appropriately respond to those factors

to reduce recidivism and improve offender outcomes

• Rate Your Programs▫ Identify appropriate program options to reduce

correctional costs without jeopardizing public safety

• Town Hall Discussion

6

Rate Your Population: Factors Associated with Offending

• Empirically Based▫ Static Risk▫ Criminogenic Need>>>Dynamic Risks>>>>Linked to Criminal

Behavior Drug Dependency Criminal lifestyle

• Clinically Relevant▫ Destabilizers

Drug Abuse or Alcohol Dependence Mental Health History

▫ Stabilizers No Criminal Networks (friends & family) Stable Housing Full-Time Employment Family Support Education

7

Simplify the Criteria:

•Risk: Identify Offenders with an Extensive and Early Onset Criminal History (Static Risk Level)

•Need #1: Identify Offenders who are Drug Dependent or who Present Multiple Criminal Lifestyle Factors (Criminogenic Need Level)

•Need #2: Identify Offenders with Potential Destabilizing and Stabilizing Factors

Static RiskStep One: Know the Risk Level

9

Risk Principle: High- to Moderate-Risk offenders should be prioritized for placement in treatment and control programs• Offenders vary by level of probability of recidivism –

Static Risk

• Risk is static or unidirectional▫ Risk stays the same or increases; it can not be reduced

• Risk factors are gathered from criminal history information▫ Age at first arrest, number of prior arrests, number of

prior probation/parole events, number of probation/parole revocations, attempted/successful escapes from custody

10

Risk Level (Classification 1)

Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

53.6%

66.0%

77.2%

24.1% 52.2% 23.7%

11

Discussion

•What is the biggest struggle when considering static risk?▫For you, for your agency?

•Where does risk fall short?

Criminogenic NeedsReducing the Complexity

13

Need Principle: Criminogenic Needs should be the primary focus of treatment, control and programming

•Criminogenic Needs are dynamic factors & link with offending behavior

•Reducing criminogenic needs reduces recidivism

•Target the key ones, and consider severity

14

Contributes to Criminal Behavior

Psy

choso

cial

fun

ctio

nin

g

Antisocial PeersSubstance AbuseFamily CJ InvolvementLocation (Crime Area)Low Self ControlAntisocial Values

Criminal PersonalitySubstance Dependence

Mental HealthEmploymentEducationHousing Family Dysfunction

Criminogenic Needs

*Items in boxes are included in our data measures

15

Easily Identifiable Criminogenic Needs• Drug Dependence

▫ Early age of first use of drugs, regular use of drugs associated with offending behavior (criminogenic drugs - crack, cocaine, heroin, other opiates, methamphetamine, other amphetamines), use of criminogenic drugs at time of offense

• 3+ Criminal Lifestyle Indicators▫ Criminal Networks

Family or friends engaged in criminal activity

▫ Family Support Lack of visits, calls, or mail from children while incarcerated; receiving

financial support from family members prior to arrest

▫ Employment Not employed full time prior to arrest

▫ Education Less than a high school diploma

▫ Housing Unstable (homeless) prior to arrest

▫ Offenders who present 3+ have higher need and should be targeted for more intensive services.

16

What do we know about Criminogenic Needs

•~9% of the prison and jail sample present with drug dependence

•24.7% have 3 or more criminal lifestyle needs

17

Risk Level by Dynamic Need (Classification 2)

Low Risk Moderate Risk

High Risk0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

No Dependence, <3 Criminal Lifestyle Indicators3+ Criminal Lifestyle IndicatorsDrug Dependence

18

Rearrest Rates by Risk Level by Dynamic Need (Classification 2)


High Risk0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

No Dependence, <3 Criminal Lifestyle Indicators3+ Criminal Lifestyle IndicatorsDrug Dependence

19

BUT… there are other variables which are clinically relevant

• Drug Abuse/Alcohol Dependence▫Older age of first use, non-regular use of criminogenic

drugs, use of drugs at time of arrest, (but not criminogenic drugs)

▫Age of first drink, drinking at time of arrest, arrested because of alcohol use, disruptions to work or relationships due to alcohol use.

• Mental Health History▫Ever diagnosed with a MH disorder, ever taken

medication for mental condition, ever admitted to or stayed overnight in a mental health hospital, ever received counseling from a trained professional, ever received other mental health treatment services

20

Presence of Destabilizer

•71.3% of the prison and jail sample report drug abuse or alcohol dependence▫69% report both drug abuse and alcohol

dependence

•6.3% report a history of mental health concerns

21

Risk and Destabilizers for Drug Dependent Individuals (Classification 3)


High Risk0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Drug Dependent, No DestabilizersDrug Dependent, 1 DestabilizerDrug Dependent, 2 Destabilizers

22

Recidivism Rate by Risk and Destabilizers for Drug Dependent Individuals (Classification 3)


High Risk0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Drug Dependent, No DestabilizersDrug Dependent, 1 DestabilizerDrug Dependent, 2 Destabilizers

23

Risk and Destabilizers for Individuals with 3+ Criminal Lifestyle Indicators (Classification 3)


High Risk0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

3+ Criminal Lifestyle Indicators, No Destabilizers3+ Criminal Lifestyle Indicators, 1 Destabi-lizer3+ Criminal Lifestyle Indicators, 2 Destabi-lizers

24

Rearrest Rates by Risk and Destabilizers for Individuals with 3+ Criminal Lifestyle Indicators (Classification 3)


High Risk0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

3+ Criminal Lifestyle Indicators, No Destabilizers3+ Criminal Lifestyle Indicators, 1 Destabi-lizer3+ Criminal Lifestyle Indicators, 2 Destabi-lizers

25

Rearrest Rates by Risk by Need by Destabilizer (Classification 3)

No

Nee

ds, N

o Des

tabi

lizer

s

No

Nee

ds, 1

Des

tabi

lizer

No

Nee

ds, 2

Des

tabi

lizer

s

3+ C

rim

Life

styl

e In

dica

tors

, No

Des

tabi

lizer

s

3+ C

rim

Life

styl

e In

dica

tors

, 1 D

esta

biliz

er

3+ C

rim

Life

styl

e In

dica

tors

, 2 D

esta

biliz

ers

Subs

tanc

e Dep

ende

nt, N

o Des

tabi

lizer

s

Subs

tanc

e Dep

ende

nt, 1

Des

tabi

lizer

Subs

tanc

e Dep

ende

nt, 2

Des

tabi

lizer

s0.00%

10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%

100.00%Low Risk

Moder-ate Risk

26

Reflection

•Does this match what you see in practice?

•What other factors are important?

27

Stabilizers

•Family Support•Educated•Full-time employment•Lack of Criminal Networks•Stable Housing

**Considered in good shape with 4+ present

• 43.6% of the combined prison and jail sample report having 4+ stabilizing indicators

28

Risk by Stabilizer for (classification 4)

Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

<4 Stabilizers

4+ Stabilizers

29

Rearrest Rates by Risk by Stabilizer for (classification 4)


High Risk0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

<4 Stabilizers

4+ Stabilizers

So What is Responsivity?The Program Categories

31

Responsivity Principle: matching of clients to programs and supervision based on their identified risks and needs.

•Balance between supervision to respond to risk and treatment programming to address needs.

•Program setting, dosage, implementation, philosophy, and quality important influences on outcomes.

32

Program Characteristics• Restriction-restrictions (including the setting of the

program) are viewed as tools used by criminal justice agents to assist in stabilizing, monitoring, and supporting offenders in their efforts to change their behavior

• Dosage-combination of frequency, length of sessions, duration of the intervention, and length of aftercare

• Content-use of empirically supported treatment philosophies and evidence based practices.

• Fidelity-principles of effective interventions including integrity and quality (Lowencamp, Latessa, & Smith, 2009)Lowenkamp, C. T., Latesa, E. J. & Smith, P. (2008). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the

principles of effective intervention. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 575-594.

33

Intensive Daily

Restrictions

Punishment Only

Moderate Daily

Restrictions

Low Daily Restrictions

Low

M

od

era

te

H

igh

Liberty Restrictions by Risk LevelR

isk

Leve

l

34

• Identify promising correctional programs supported by the literature

• Meta-analytic techniques are the strongest evidence since they summarize the literature

• ACE! “collaboratory” to identify and code systematic reviews to identify known effect sizes

• To date Aos, Miller, and Drake (2006) have identified multiple promising programs including: CBT-based programs, adult drug courts, and Therapeutic Communities followed by aftercare.

Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs and Crime Rates. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Content

35

Expected Reductions in Recidivism• Programs:

▫ CBT and CBT based programs (6.8%-31.2%)a

▫ Therapeutic Communities (5.3% no aftercare to 6.9% with aftercare) a

▫ Specialized Courts (10.7% drug courts) a

▫ Sex Offender Treatment▫ Intensive Manualized Drug Treatment▫ Half Back Programs▫ Outpatient Drug Treatment

• Supervision Tools▫ Electronic Monitoring▫ Motivational Interviewing▫ Drug Testing▫ Intensive Supervision (17.9%-21.9% when paired with treatment)a

Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs and Crime Rates. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

36

Program Categories• Category A: Intensive daily restrictions on behavior with 3+ hours a day in

a setting; deals with High Risk and Substance Abuse Dependent or 3+ Criminogenic Needs.

• Category B: Moderate daily restrictions on behavior with services multiple times a week; deals with High Risk with <3 Criminogenic Needs

• Category C: Low daily restrictions on behavior with multiple times a month services; deals with Moderate Risk with Drug Dependence or 3+ Criminogenic Needs

• Category D: Weekly restrictions on behavior; for Moderate Risk with Drug Use or Alcohol Dependence and Low Risk with 3+ Criminogenic Needs or Drug Dependence

• Category E: Weekly restrictions on behavior for Low Risk with Drug Use or Alcohol Dependence

• Category F: Punishment only for Low Risk with <3 Criminogenic Needs

37

Program Category A

• Includes individuals classified as high risk with drug dependence or 3+ criminal lifestyle factors.

• Approximately 4.7% of the sample

• Programs include: ▫ CBT-3 or more hours per day, 5 days per week, for at least 90 days, plus

aftercare.▫ Therapeutic community- 3 or more hours per day, 5 or more days per week,

for at least 9 months, in a highly structured environment, plus community based reentry services and tapered aftercare.

▫ Specialized court- 3 hours per day, five days a week, at least 12 months.▫ Intensive manualized drug treatment-at least 3 hours per day, five days a

week, at least 9 months.▫ Sex offender treatment-at least 3 hours daily, combining intensive individual

and group counseling as appropriate. ▫ Half-back programs-at least 3 hours per day.

• Supervision tools: used to manage compliance and address public safety.

38

Program Category B• Includes individuals classified as high risk with <3 criminogenic needs


• Programs include:▫ CBT based programming-one or more hours at least 2-4 times weekly,

lasting about 90 days, followed by aftercare.▫ Specialized court-lasting at least 12 months.▫ Intensive manualized drug treatment-2 or more hours session, 3 or more

days per week, at least 9 months. ▫ Sex offender treatment-at least 2 hours per session, at least 3 days a

week, combining intensive individual and group counseling as appropriate.

▫ Work release—behavior restricted when not engaged in employment-related activities outside of the facility.

▫ Educational, vocational, or employment-2-4 days a week for at least 2 hours each session .

• Supervision tools used to manage compliance and address public safety (lower levels of restriction from A).

39

Program Category C• Includes individuals classified as moderate risk with drug dependence or

3+ criminogenic needs


• Programs include:▫ CBT based programming-1+hours per week, lasting about 90 days.▫ Educational, vocational, or employment programs that include activities

once per week for 1+hours each session. ▫ Specialized court-1+ hours per session weekly, lasting at least 6 months,

could be supported by more frequent group treatment sessions as needed.▫ Manualized drug treatment-1+ hours per session, weekly extends for 6

months and could be supported by more frequent group substance abuse sessions as needed.

▫ Sex offender treatment-2+ hours, at least weekly and combining intensive individual and group counseling as appropriate.

• Supervision tools used to manage compliance and address public safety (lower levels of restriction from B).

40

Program Category D• Includes individuals classified as moderate risk with drug use

or alcohol dependence and low risk with 3+ criminogenic needs or drug dependence

• Approximately 23.5% of the sample.

• Programs include:▫ Outpatient drug treatment-at least 1 hour/week on a weekly

basis, which may be supported by attendance at group substance abuse treatment sessions or at self-help groups.

▫ Substance abuse group counseling at least weekly. ▫ CBT based programming-one hour/week lasting about 90 days.▫ Educational, vocational, or employment programs that include

activities once per week for around 1 hour each session.

• Supervision tools used to manage compliance and address public safety (lower levels of restriction from C).

41

Program Category E• Includes individuals classified as moderate risk with no substance use or

criminogenic needs (with stabilizers) or low risk with drug use or alcohol dependence.


• Programs include:▫ Substance abuse group counseling 2-3 times per month, as needed. ▫ Psycho-educational services.▫ Drug/alcohol abuse/use education.▫ CBT based programming-one hour about 2-3 times per month, and over the

course of at about 90 days ▫ Educational, vocational, or employment programs that include activities as

needed. ▫ Referrals for treatment services or community educational/vocational,

literacy, ESL or other such programs with no or limited requirments for attendance

• Supervision tools used to manage compliance and address public safety (lower levels of restriction from D).

42

Program Category F

• Includes individuals classified as low risk with <3 criminogenic needs.


• Includes fines, community service, restitution, shock incarceration, and other criminal justice sanctions with the sole purpose of being punitive and retributive.

• Likely to include some form of supervision, but with no additional services to assist the offender in managing criminogenic needs.

43

A B C D E F0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Low RiskModerate RiskHigh Risk

Percent of Program Category within Static Risk Level

44

A B C D E F0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Low RiskModerate RiskHigh Risk

Percent Rearrested by Program Category and Static Risk Level-Actual Rates with No Programming

45

Discussion

•Do the program categories clarify the differences seen in risk levels?

•Questions?

46

Next Steps

•Establish expected reductions in recidivism following appropriate program placement.

•Expanding data to include pre-trial, diversion, and probation samples using SCPS data.

•Pilot model with data from multiple jurisdictions.

•Model can be used at the individual or jurisdictional level.

47

Faye S. Taxman, Ph.D.University ProfessorCenter for Advancing Correctional Excellence

(ACE!)Criminology, Law and Society George Mason University10519 Braddock Road Suite 1900Fairfax, VA 22032

Stephanie A. Ainsworth, M.A.Graduate Research AssistantCenter for Advancing Correctional Excellence


Erin L. Crites, M.A.Graduate Research AssistantCenter for Advancing Correctional Excellence


Avinash Singh Bhati, Ph.D. Maxarth, LLC 509 Cedar Spring St.,Gaithersburg, MD 20877

James M. Byrne, Ph.D.ProfessorDepartment of Criminal Justice and

Criminology University of Massachusetts, Lowell1 University Avenue,Lowell, MA 01854

April Pattavina, Ph.D.Associate ProfessorDepartment of Criminal Justice and

Criminology University of Massachusetts, Lowell1 University Avenue,Lowell, MA 01854

Edward Banks, Ph.D. Knowledge Management Coordinator Bureau of Justice Assistance810 Seventh Street NW., Fourth FloorWashington, DC 20531

Documents

If We’re Serious About Recidivism, How Can We Reduce the Gap in Service Provision? Faye S. Taxman, Ph.D. Stephanie A. Ainsworth, M.A. Erin L. Crites, M.A