THE NSW BUREAU OF CRIME STATISTICS AND RESEARCH

APPLIED RESEARCH IN CRIME AND JUSTICE CONFERENCE 2015

REDUCING T

HE CRIM

INAL

ACTIVIT

IES O

F OFFENDERS

Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.DDirector, Penn State Justice Center for Research andProfessor of Criminology

Based on a paper by D.L. MacKenzie and G. Zajac, “What Works in Corrections: the Impact of Correctional Interventions on Recidivism submitted to the U.S. National Academies of Science, 2014

REDUCING THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES OF OFFENDERSOVERVIEW

Changes in correctional philosophy in the U.S.

Impact of changes

Evidence-based corrections

Improvement in quality of research

What Works to reduce recidivism

Fidelity and implementation

1975: LIPTON, MARTINSON AND WILKS STUDY FOR NEW YORK CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM

What Works?

“(with) few and isolated exceptions the rehabilitative efforts that have been reported so far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism.“

(Martinson, 1974, p25)

WORK WAS WIDELY INTERPRETED AS:

“NOTHING WORKS”

MARTINSON AND COLLEAGUE’S CONCLUSIONS

Inadequate research designs and methods Poorly implemented programs

Impossible to determine from the existing data whether anything could work!!!!!

TIMES WERE RIPE FOR CHANGE

Social upheavals

Civil rights, women’s rights, sexual freedom

War in Vietnam

Corrections: riots in prison, unfairness of the system

Dramatic change in U.S. corrections

Move away from rehabilitation

More punitive, law and order and get tough

Deterrence and incapacitation

CHANGES IN PHILOSOPHY OF CORRECTIONS

Impact on correctional system

and

What was studied

IMPACT ON CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM

Move away from rehabilitation, “Nothing Works”

Use of incapacitation and deterrence

Law and order philosophy

U.S. Incarceration Rate in State and Federal Institutions

CHANGES SINCE MARTINSON’S REPORT

Corrections philosophy

Evidence-based corrections

Improvement in quality of research

Emphasis on implementation

CHANGES IN PHILOSOPHY

More punitive

Law and order

Incapacitation

Deterrence

PROGRAMS/ INTERVENTIONS

Correctional boot camps

Longer prison sentences

More prison sentences

Urine testing

Intensive supervision

EVIDENCE-BASED CORRECTIONS

Use of science in decision making

Identify effective correctional programs, interventions, strategies

Correctional interventions should be those shown in scientific studies to have the desired impact

WHAT WORKS IN CORRECTIONS?

What have we learned from the research?

Focus on reducing recidivism

Examined management strategies, programs, interventions, treatment

DETERMINING WHAT WORKS

Maryland Report assessments

Quality of research

Significance and direction of effects

Meta-analyses

MARYLAND CRIME PREVENTION REPORT

Requested by U.S. Congress

Comprehensive evaluation of effectiveness crime prevention efforts (including corrections)

“What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising” Sherman et. al.

DECISION MAKING PROCEDURE

2 STAGE ASSESSMENT

1.Assess scientific quality and significance

2. Examine groups of studies

DECISIONS

What works

What doesn’t work

Promising

Don’t know

SCORING FOR SCIENTIFIC QUALITY

Score Characteristic

1 Very poor quality

2 Association

3 Comparison group

4 Similar comparison group (propensity scoring, controls)

5 Control group/ Experimental design Randomly assigned Gold standard

META-ANALYSES

Analysis of a group of studies

Quantitative analysis

Effect sizes

Careful coding of studiesprogram componentsparticipant characteristicsQuality of research design/ methods

BOOT CAMP META-ANALYSIS EXAMPLE

29 eligible studies41 samples – 14 juveniles, 27 adults

FOREST PLOT FROM META-ANALYSIS: CORRECTIONAL BOOT CAMPS Favors Comparison Favors Bootcamp

Fl. Dept. of JJ (Martin Co.), 1997 Farrington, et al., 2000

Fl. Dept. of JJ (Polk Co., Boys), 1997 Jones (FY97), 1998

Jones (FY94-95), 1998 Mackenzie & Souryal (Illinois), 1994

Mackenzie & Souryal (Louisiana), 1994 Jones (FY91-93), 1998

Mackenzie & Souryal (Florida), 1994 Jones (FY96), 1998

Marcus-Mendoza (Men), 1995 Flowers, Carr, & Ruback 1991

Fl. Dept. of JJ (Leon Co.), 1996 Mackenzie & Souryal (Oklahoma), 1994

T3 Associates, 2000 Mackenzie & Souryal (New York), 1994

Peters (Mobile, AL), 1996b Camp & Sandhu, 1995

Zhang, 2000 Mackenzie & Souryal (S.C., New), 1994

Jones, 1996 Zhang, 2000

NY DCS (88-96 Releases), 2000 Marcus-Mendoza (Women), 1995

Farrington, et al., 2000 Harer & Klein-Saffran, 1996

Kempinem & Kurlychek, 2001 Austin, Jones, & Bolyard, 1993

Burns & Vito, 1995 Peters (Denver, CO), 1996a

Fl. Dept. of JJ (Bay Co.), 1997 Mackenzie, et al. 1997

CA Dept. of the Youth Authority, 1997 NY DCS (96-97 Releases), 2000 NY DCS (97-98 Releases), 2000

Fl. Dept. of JJ (Pinellas Co.), 1996 Fl. Dept. of JJ (Manatee Co.), 1996

Boyles, Bokenkamp, & Madura, 1996 Mackenzie & Souryal (S.C., Old), 1994

Fl. Dept. of JJ (Polk Co., Girls), 1997 Jones, 1997

Thomas & Peters, 1996 Wright & Mays, 1998

Mackenzie & Souryal (Georgia), 1994

Overall Mean Odds-Ratio

.1 .25 .50 .75 1 2 5 10

Odds-Ratio

◊=Central tendency, lines=confidence intervals

Favors Comparison Favors Treatment Author and Year N PRENDERGAST ET AL 1996 64

HARTMANN ET AL 1997 244 TUNIS ET AL (DEUCE) 1995 264

TUNIS ET AL (JET) 1995 150 INCIARDI ET AL (CREST) 1997 359

TUNIS ET AL (REACH) 1995 159 WEXLER ET AL (MALES) 1990 594

WEXLER ET AL 1999 715 TAXMAN & SPINNER 1996 528

PETERS ET AL 1993 420 KNIGHT ET AL (ITC) 1999 396

SMITH 1996 495 HUGHEY & KLEMKE 1996 394

WEXLER ET AL (FEMALES) 1990 285 WA STATE DOC 1998 676

LITTLE ET AL 1991 152 EISENBERG & FABELO 1996 1067 ZHANG ('97 COHORT) 2000 200

PELISSIER ET AL (MALES) 2000 1842 PELISSIER ET AL (FEMALES) 2000 473

TUNIS ET AL (SAID) 1995 374 ZHANG ('92-93 COHORT) 2000 854

OREGON DOC 1994 240 GRANSKY & JONES 1997 415

EISENBERG 2001 5746 TUNIS ET AL (NEW BEGIN) 1995 166

SEALOCK ET AL 1997 520 DUGAN & EVERETT 1998 117

MAGURA ET AL (MALES) 1993 149 SHAW & MACKENZIE 1992 256

SIEGAL ET AL 1997 726 MAGURA ET AL (FEMALES) 1993 100

Overall Mean Odds-Ratio

.1 .25 .50 .75 1 2 5 10 25

Odds-Ratio

IN-PRISON DRUG TREATMENT

QUALITY OF RESEARCH

Many more experiments (random assignment) since Martinson’s report

Experiments with offending outcomes

35 from 1957-1981 (Farrington)

83 from 1982-2002 (Farrington and Welsh)

Most meta-analyses control for quality of research

Some meta-analyses use only randomized trials

IMPROVEMENT BUT STILL RELATIVELY FEW RANDOMIZED TRIALS

284 Studies at scientific method score of 2 or higher

Only 14.8 % of the studies scored “5”

23.2 % scored “2” – too low to use to determine “What Works”

USING META-ANALYSES TO DETERMINE WHAT WORKS

Comprehensive or theoretical meta-analyses

Large number of studies

More inclusive in eligibility criteria

Support for various theoretical perspectives

Identify general principles of treatment and effectiveness

Intervention-specific meta-analyses

Focus on specific types of programs, strategies or interventions

Clearly define

Does the particular type of intervention reduce recidivism?

Campbell Collaboration

COMPREHENSIVE META-ANALYSES OF CORRECTION INTERVENTIONSPrograms that follow the proposed principles (Andrews and Bonta 2006) are more effective than others

Behavioral, skill-oriented or multimodal programs are more effective than other types of programs (Andrews, Bonta, Gendreau, Lipsey 1992, Losel 1995)

Therapeutic rehabilitation programs more effective than punitive approaches (control and deterrence) (Lipsey and Cullen 2007; Lipsey 2009)

Programs targeting high risk offenders are more effective (Lipsey 2009)

Well implemented programs are more effective (Lipsey 2009)

INTERVENTION-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENTS

WHAT WORKS?

Drug treatment in community and prison

Drug Courts

Education

Vocational Ed

Some Sex offender treatment

Cognitive skills programs

NO EVIDENCE, DOES NOT WORK

Boot Camps

Scared Straight

Correctional Industries

Work programs

Custodial sanctions

Intensive supervision

Life skills

Batterer programs

Electronic monitoring

CLASSIFYING PROGRAMS

Type Examples Effective?

Surveillance and control Electronic monitoring,Intensive supervision

NO

Deterrence and punitive Scared StraightLonger or more prison

NO

Discipline Correctional boot camps NO

Services and opportunities

Correctional industriesWork programs

NO

Rehabilitation and skill building

Cognitive skillsEducation

YES

INTERVENTIONS USING “GET TOUGH” OR “LAW AND ORDER” PHILOSOPHY DO NOT WORK

Surveillance and control

Deterrence and punitive

Discipline

WHY AREN’T PROGRAMS THAT INCREASE SERVICES AND OPPORTUNITIES EFFECTIVE?

Offenders are not prepared to take advantage

Don’t stop “street life, alcohol/drug use or partying

Don’t get up to make it to work on time

May not get along with others at work

INDIVIDUAL TRANSFORMATION

Offenders must be changed before they are prepared to take advantage of opportunities in the environment

(Giordano and colleagues, Maruna, Shover, Farrall)

WE’VE COME A LONG WAY SINCE MARTINSON

Some programs do work

New and better research techniques

GOOD NEWS

Some interventions/programs work

Increased number of experiments

Emphasis on evidence-based corrections

BAD NEWSMany programs/ interventions implemented under “law & order” emphasis have been shown to be ineffective

Quality of research

Long way to go to reach other fields in number of experiments

Meta-analyses search through thousands of studies to find level 3 or above

Fidelity and Implementation still an issue

FIDELITY AND IMPLEMENTATION

Well-trained staff

Principles of effective programs

Dosage

Risk level

Quality control

EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPLEMENTATION QUALITY

Implementation Quality

InterventionEffectiveness

High Low

Effective GoodIntervention

PoorIntervention

Ineffective Poor Intervention

Poor Intervention

MORAL IMPERATIVES

Adequate research designs

Well implemented programs and policies

Using evidence about what works

THANK YOU

Doris Layton MacKenzie

327 Pond Bldg

Penn State University

University Park, PA

USA

dlm69@psu.edu

814-867-3292

MacKenzie, D. L. (2005). The importance of using scientific evidence to make decisions about correctional programming. Criminology & Public Policy , 4 (2), 249-258.

MacKenzie, D. (2000). Evidence-based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime and Delinquency , 46 (4), 471.

MacKenzie, D. L. (2001). Corrections and sentencing in the 21st century: Evidence-based corrections and sentencing. The Prison Journal , 81 (3), 299-312.

Campbell Collaboration. http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/crime_and_justice/index.php

MacKenzie, D. L. (2002). Reducing the Criminal Activities of Known Offenders and Delinquents: Crime Prevention in the Courts and Corrections. In L. W. Sherman, B. C. Welsh, D. P. Farrington, & D. L. MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidence-Based Crime Prevention (pp. 330-404). London, UK: Harwood Academic Publishers.Reprinted revised edition 2006, NY: Routledge. Sherman, L. W., Welsh, B. C., Farrington, D. P., & MacKenzie, D. L. (Eds.). (2002). Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. London, UK: Harwood Academic Publishers.

Reprinted revised edition 2006, NY: Routledge.