What Works and What Doesn’t in Reducing · What Works and What Doesn’t in Reducing Recidivism with Offenders: Understanding the Principles of Effective Intervention Presented

What Works and What Doesn’t in Reducing

Recidivism with Offenders: Understanding the

Principles of Effective Intervention

Presented by:

Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D.

School of Criminal Justice

University of Cincinnati

[email protected]

www.uc.edu/criminaljustice

Evidence Based – What does it mean?

There are different forms of evidence:

– The lowest form is anecdotal evidence;

stories, opinions, testimonials, case studies,

etc - but it often makes us feel good

– The highest form is empirical evidence –

research, data, results from controlled

studies, etc. - but sometimes it doesn’t make

us feel good

Evidence Based Practice is:

1.Easier to think of as Evidence Based Decision

Making

2. Involves several steps and encourages the use

of validated tools and treatments.

3. Not just about the tools you have but also how

you use them

Evidence Based Decision Making Requires

1.Assessment information

2.Relevant research

3.Available programming

4.Evaluation

5.Professionalism and knowledge from staff

What does the Research tell us?

There is often a Misapplication of Research: “XXX

Study Says”

- the problem is if you believe every study we wouldn’t eat anything (but we would drink a lot of red wine!)

• Looking at one study can be a mistake

• Need to examine a body of research

• So, what does the body of knowledge about correctional interventions tell us?

Most researchers who study correctional

interventions have concluded:

• Without some form of human intervention or services there is unlikely to be much effect on recidivism from punishment alone

• The evidence also indicates that while treatment is more effective in reducing recidivism than punishment – Not all treatment programs are equally effective

People Who Appear to be

Resistant to Punishment

• Psychopathic risk takers

• Those under the influence of a substance

• Those with a history of being punished

A Large Body of Research Has

Indicated…. ….that correctional services and interventions can be

effective in reducing recidivism for offenders, however, not all programs are equally effective

• The most effective programs are based on some principles of effective interventions

• Risk (Who)

• Need (What)

• Treatment (How)

• Program Integrity (How Well)

Let’s Start with the Risk Principle

Risk refers to risk of reoffending and

not the seriousness of the offense.

Risk Principle

As a general rule treatment effects are stronger if

we target higher risk offenders, and harm can be

done to low risk offenders

Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community

Supervision Sample

9.1

34.3

58.9

69.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk Very High Risk

Pe

rce

nt

wit

h N

ew A

rre

st

Low 0-14 Medium = 15-23 High = 24-33 Very High 34+

There are Three Elements to

the Risk Principle 1. Target those offenders with higher

probability of recidivism

2. Provide most intensive treatment to higher risk offenders

3. Intensive treatment for lower risk offender can increase recidivism

#1: Targeting Higher Risk Offenders

• It is important to understand that even with

EBP there will be failures.

• Even if you reduce recidivism rates you

will still have high percentage of failures

Example of Targeting Higher Risk Offenders

• If you have 100 High risk offenders

about 60% will fail

• If you put them in well designed EBP for

sufficient duration you may reduce

failure rate to 40%

• If you have 100 low risk offenders about

10% will fail

• If you put them in same program failure

rate will be 20%

Targeting Higher Risk Offenders

continued:

• In the end, who had the lower recidivism

rate?

• Mistake we make is comparing high risk

to low risk rather than look for treatment

effects

#2: Provide Most Intensive Interventions to Higher

Risk Offenders: The question is “What does more

“intensive” treatment mean in practice?”

• Most studies show that the longer

someone is in treatment the great the

effects, however:

• Effects tend to diminish if treatment goes

too long

Just starting to see research

in corrections examining the

dosage of treatment needed

to achieve effect

Some Guidelines for Dosage

• Higher risk offenders will require much

higher dosage of treatment

– Rule of thumb: 100 hours for moderate risk

– 200+ hours for high risk

– 100 hours for high risk will have little effect

– Does not include work/school and other

activities that are not directly addressing

criminogenic risk factors

Results from a 2010 Study (Latessa,

Sperber, and Makarios) of 689 offenders

• 100-bed secure residential facility for adult male felons

• Cognitive-behavioral treatment modality

• Average age 33

• 60% single, never married

• 43% less than high school education

• 80% moderate risk or higher

• 88% have probability of substance abuse per SASSI

Findings & Conclusions

• We saw large decreases in recidivism when dosage

levels go from 100 to 200 hours for high risk offenders---

81% to 57%.

• The results are not as strong for moderate risk

offenders

• Supports previous research including the risk principle

• Indicates that we cannot have “one size” fits all

programs

#3 As a general rule treatment effects

are stronger if we target higher risk

offenders, and harm can be done to

low risk offenders:

• Low risk offenders will learn anti social

behavior from higher risk

• Disrupts pro-social networks

The Risk Principle & Correctional

Intervention Results from Meta

Analysis

-4

19

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

High Risk Low Risk

Ch

an

ge

In R

ec

idiv

ism

Ra

tes

Dowden & Andrews, 1999

Reduced

Recidivism

Increased Recidivism

Study of Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision in Canada

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

High Risk 31.6 51.1

Low Risk 32.3 14.5

Treatment Non-Treatment

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

Recidivism

Rates

2002 STUDY OF COMMUNITY

CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS IN OHIO

• Largest study of community based correctional treatment facilities ever done up to that time.

• 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

Increased

Recidivism

Reduced

Recidivism

Treatment Effects For High Risk Offenders

-34

-18

-15 -14

-6 -5

-2 -2

2 3 3 35 6 7 8 8 9 10 10

12 12 12 13 13 1315

21 2224 25

27

3032

34

River C

ity

Fresh Start

Alternative A

gency

Talbert House C

ornerstone

Com

munity A

ssessment Program

(Men’s)

Monday

WO

RTH

Cincinnati V

OA

McM

ahon Hall

Talbert House Spring G

rove

NEO

CA

P

Oriana H

ouse RIP

Alvis H

ouse Dunning H

all

Lorain/Medina

All C

BCF Facilities

Canton C

omm

unity Treatment C

enter

Lucas County

SRCCC

All Facilities

Licking/Muskingum

Summ

it County

Butler

SEPTA

Com

munity Transitions

Franklin County

Small Program

s

Oriana H

ouse TMRC

Cincinnati V

OA

Chem

ical Dependency Program

Alvis H

ouse Alum

Creek

Talbert House B

eekman

Com

p Drug

Harbor Light Salvation A

rmy

Com

munity C

orrections Association

Toledo VO

A

Mahoning C

ounty

EOCC

0

10

20

30

40

-10

-20

-30

-40

Pro

bability o

f R

ein

carc

era

tion

2010 STUDY OF COMMUNITY

CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS IN OHIO

• Over 20,000 offenders – 44 Halfway Houses and 20 Community Based Correctional Facilities (CBCFs) were included in the study.

• Two-year follow-up conducted on all offenders

Treatment Effects for Low Risk

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Har

bo

r L

ight-

-D/A

Co

mpD

rug

MO

ND

AY

Ori

ana

RIP

Ori

ana

CC

TC

Wes

t C

entr

al

CA

TS

mal

e R

TP

TH

Tu

rtle

Cre

ek

Cin

ti V

OA

SO

T

AH

Alu

m C

reek

Har

bo

r L

ight-

-Corr

Alt

ernat

ives

Fra

nk

lin

ST

AR

K

WO

RT

H

CT

CC

Can

ton

NE

OC

AP

Ori

ana

TM

RC

TH

Spri

ngro

ve

Ori

ana

Sum

mit

Pat

hfi

nder

Ori

ana

Cli

ff S

kee

n

AL

L C

BC

F F

AC

ILIT

IES

EO

CC

Fem

ale

AL

L H

WH

FA

CIL

ITIE

S

Lora

in-M

edin

a

Mah

onin

g

Ori

ana

Cro

ssw

eah

Riv

er C

ity

ST

AR

Tal

ber

t H

ouse

CC

C

Bo

oth

H/S

alv A

CC

A R

TC

I

CC

A R

TC

II

Cin

ti V

OA

D/A

Co

mm

Tra

ns

Ctr

Cro

ssro

ads

Div

ersi

fied

Fre

sh S

tart

SO

S

TH

Pat

hw

ays

AH

Dun

nin

g

AR

CA

Ori

ana

RC

C

Lic

kin

g-M

usk

ing

um

CA

TS

fem

ale

RT

P

Man

sfie

ld V

OA

SE

PT

A

TH

Corn

erst

on

e

EO

CC

Mal

e

Luca

s

AH

Pri

ce

AH

Vet

eran

s

Day

ton V

OA

Sm

all

Pro

gra

ms

Tole

do V

OA

Nort

hw

est

CC

C

TH

Bee

km

an

CA

TS

mal

e T

C

% D

iffe

ren

ce i

n R

ate

of

New

Fel

on

y C

on

vic

tio

n

Treatment Effects for High Risk

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

AH

Vet

eran

s

TH

Bee

km

an

MO

ND

AY

CT

CC

Can

ton

TH

Spri

ngro

ve

Nort

hw

est

CC

C

WO

RT

H

Div

ersi

fied

Ori

ana

CC

TC

Ori

ana

Sum

mit

Ori

ana

Cro

ssw

eah

AR

CA

Bo

oth

H/S

alv A

CA

TS

mal

e R

TP

Cro

ssro

ads

Fra

nk

lin

Co

mm

Tra

ns

Ctr

ST

AR

K

Riv

er C

ity

Tal

ber

t H

ouse

CC

C

Wes

t C

entr

al

EO

CC

Mal

e

AL

L C

BC

F F

AC

ILIT

IES

Co

mpD

rug

AH

Dun

nin

g

Alt

ernat

ives

CC

A R

TC

II

Sm

all

Pro

gra

ms

Har

bo

r L

ight-

-D/A

AL

L H

WH

FA

CIL

ITIE

S

Ori

ana

TM

RC

CA

TS

mal

e T

C

Fre

sh S

tart

Day

ton V

OA

NE

OC

AP

Har

bo

r L

ight-

-Corr

Ori

ana

RIP

Lic

kin

g-M

usk

ing

um

Mah

onin

g

Cin

ti V

OA

D/A

Ori

ana

RC

C

ST

AR

SO

S

Luca

s

CA

TS

fem

ale

RT

P

AH

Pri

ce

TH

Tu

rtle

Cre

ek

Lora

in-M

edin

a

Pat

hfi

nder

Tole

do V

OA

EO

CC

Fem

ale

Ori

ana

Cli

ff S

kee

n

SE

PT

A

AH

Alu

m C

reek

Man

sfie

ld V

OA

TH

Corn

erst

on

e

CC

A R

TC

I

% D

iffe

ren

ce i

n R

ate

of

New

Fel

on

y C

on

vic

tio

n

Another important body of knowledge to

understand is the research on risk factors

What are the risk factors correlated with

criminal conduct?

Major Set of Risk/Need Factors

1. Antisocial/procriminal attitudes, values, beliefs & cognitive emotional states

2. Procriminal associates & isolation from anti-criminal others

3. Temperamental & anti-social personality patterns conducive to criminal activity:

Weak Socialization

Impulsivity

Adventurous

Pleasure seeking

Restless Aggressive

Egocentrism

Below Average Verbal intelligence

A Taste For Risk

Weak Problem-Solving/lack of Coping & Self-Regulation Skills

4. A history of antisocial behavior

Major Set of Risk/Need Factors Cont.

5. Familial factors that include criminality and a variety of

psychological problems in the family of origin

6. Low levels of personal, educational, vocational, or

financial achievement

7. Low levels of involvement in prosocial leisure activities

8. Substance Abuse

So what about Mental Health?

Mentally Disordered Offenders (MDOs)

Conventional Clinical Wisdom:

• Criminal activities of MDOs best explained by psychopathological models

• Assessments typically focus on psychiatric diagnoses, psychiatric symptomatology, and personal distress (i.e. anxiety, depression)

• Assessments are often costly and time consuming

MDOs Continued

Review of the Empirical Research:

• The Psychopathological model has little relevance regarding the

prediction of MDO criminal behavior

• Gendreau conducted meta-analysis on studies of psychiatric symptomatology and general recidivism: Correlation=ZERO

• Bonta’s meta analysis found correlation between having a diagnosed mental disorder, mood disorder, or psychosis and general/violent recidivism ranged from r = .01 to -.17.

• Criminogenic risk factors were the strongest predictors (r=.23)

Recent study by Bucklen and Zajac

of parole violators in Pennsylvania

found a number of criminogenic

factors related to failure*

*Conducted by Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections

Pennsylvania Parole Study

Social Network and Living Arrangements

Violators Were:

• More likely to hang around with individuals

with criminal backgrounds

• Less likely to live with a spouse

• Less likely to be in a stable supportive

relationship

• Less likely to identify someone in their life

who served in a mentoring capacity


Employment & Financial Situation

Violators were:

• Only slightly more likely to report having difficulty getting a

job

• Less likely to have job stability

• Less likely to be satisfied with employment

• Less likely to take low end jobs and work up

• More likely to have negative attitudes toward employment

& unrealistic job expectations

• Less likely to have a bank account

• More likely to report that they were “barely making it” (yet

success group reported over double median debt)


Alcohol or Drug Use

Violators were:

• More likely to report use of alcohol or

drugs while on parole (but no difference in

prior assessment of dependency problem)

• Poor management of stress was a primary

contributing factor to relapse


Life on Parole - Violators were:

• Had poor problem solving or coping skills

• Did not anticipate long term consequences of behavior

• Failed to utilize resources to help themselves

• Acted impulsively to immediate situations

• Felt they were not in control

• More likely to maintain anti-social attitudes

• Viewed violations as an acceptable option to situation

• Maintained general lack of empathy

• Shifted blame or denied responsibility

• Had unrealistic expectations about what life would be like

outside of prison

Pennsylvania Parole Violator

Study:

• Successes and failures did not differ in

difficulty in finding a place to live after

release

• Successes & failures equally likely to

report eventually obtaining a job

Need Principle By assessing and targeting criminogenic needs for change,

agencies can reduce the probability of recidivism

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

• Many correctional intervention programs

are based on tradition, custom, & imitation

rather than scientific evidence of

effectiveness

Targeting Criminogenic Need: Results from Meta-

Analyses

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Target 1-3 more non-

criminogenic needs

Target at least 4-6 more

criminogenic needs

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

Criminal Thinking and Mental Illness*

Morgan, Fisher and Wolff (2010) studied 414 adult offenders

with mental illness (265 males, 149 females) and found:

• 66% had belief systems supportive of criminal life style (based on

Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Scale (PICTS)

• When compare to other offender samples, male offenders with MI

scored similar or higher than non-mentally disordered offenders.

• On Criminal Sentiments Scale-Revised, 85 % of men and 72 % of

women with MI had antisocial attitudes, values and beliefs – which was

higher than incarcerated sample without MI.

Center for Behavioral Health Services Criminal Justice Research Policy Brief, April 2010. Rutgers University.

Conclusion

• Criminal Thinking styles differentiate people who

commit crimes from those who do not

independent of mental illness

• Incarcerated persons with mental illness are

often mentally ill and criminal

• Needs to be treated as co-occurring problems

Assessment is the engine that drives

effective correctional programs

• Need to meet the risk and need principle

• Reduces bias

• Aids decision making

• Allows you to target dynamic risk factors

and measure change

To understand assessment

one needs to consider types of risk factors

According to the American Heart Association, there are a

number of risk factors that increase your chances of a first

heart attack

Family history of heart attacks

Gender (males)

Age (over 50)

Inactive lifestyle

Over weight

High blood pressure

Smoking

High Cholesterol level

Dynamic and Static Factors • Static Factors are those factors that are

related to risk and do not change. Some examples might be number of prior offenses, whether an offender has ever had a drug/alcohol problem.

• Dynamic factors relate to risk and can change. Some examples are whether an offender is currently unemployed or currently has a drug/alcohol problem.

There are two types of dynamic

risk factors • Acute – Can change quickly

• Stable – Take longer to change

Prioritizing Interventions: What to

Change and Why

• Criminogenic targets – reduce risk for

recidivism

• Non-criminogenic targets – may reduce

barriers but NOT risk

Treatment Principle

The most effective interventions are behavioral:

• Focus on current factors that influence

behavior

• Action oriented

• Staff follow “core correctional practices”

Results from Meta Analysis:

Behavioral vs. NonBehavioral

0.07

0.29

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Nonbehavioral (N=83) Behavioral (N=41)

Reduced

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.

Most Effective Behavioral

Models • Structured social learning where new skills

and behaviors are modeled

• Cognitive behavioral approaches that

target criminogenic risk factors

Social Learning

Refers to several processes through which individuals

acquire attitudes, behavior, or knowledge from the persons

around them. Both modeling and instrumental conditioning

appear to play a role in such learning

The Four Principles of Cognitive

Intervention

1. Thinking affects behavior

2. Antisocial, distorted, unproductive irrational thinking can lead to antisocial and unproductive behavior

3. Thinking can be influenced

4. We can change how we feel and behave by changing what we think

Recent Meta-Analysis of Cognitive Behavioral Treatment

for Offenders by Landenberger & Lipsey (2005)*

• Reviewed 58 studies:

19 random samples

23 matched samples

16 convenience samples

• Found that on average CBT reduced recidivism by 25%,

but the most effective configurations found more than

50% reductions

Significant Findings (effects were stronger if):

• Sessions per week (2 or more) - RISK

• Implementation monitored - FIDELITY

• Staff trained on CBT - FIDELITY

• Higher proportion of treatment completers -

RESPONSIVITY

• Higher risk offenders - RISK

• Higher if CBT is combined with other services -

NEED

Reducing Prison & Jail

Misconducts

• Findings from a 2006 meta analysis of 68 studies involving 21,467 offenders

• Outcomes included violent misconduct, nonviolent misconduct, and institutional adjustment

• Sample included 73% male, 8% female & 19% coed.

• Included both adult and juvenile samples

Average Effect Size for Misconducts by Treatment Type

From: French, S, & Gendreau P.. (2006). Reduc ing Prison Misconduc ts What Work !. Criminal Jus tice and Behav ior. 33 (2); 185-218.

0.26

0.1

0.02 0.02

Behavioral Non-behavioral Educational/Vocational Unspecified0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Avera

ge

Effect S

ize

T ype of T reatment

Average Effect Size for Misconducts by Number of Criminogenic Needs Targeted


0.29

0.16

0.06

3 to 8 1-2 00

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Avera

ge E

ffect S

ize

Average Effect Size for Misconducts by Program Quality


0.38

0.2

0.13

HIgh Moderate Low0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5A

vera

ge

Effect

Siz

e

Program Qualtiy

Average Effect Size for Misconduct Reductions and Recidivism


0.13

-0.05High Misconduct Reductions Low Misconduct Reductions

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

-0.05

Re

du

ce

d R

ecid

ivis

mIn

cre

ase

d R

ecid

ivis

m

Cognitive-Behavioral

Cognitive Theories Social Learning Theory

WHAT to change HOW to change it

What

offenders

think

How

offenders

think

Model

Practice

Reward

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1:10 1:08 1:06 1:04 1:02 2:01 4:01 6:01 8:01 10:01

Pro

bab

ilit

y o

f IS

P S

ucc

ess

Ratio of Rewards to Punishments

Ratio of Rewards to Punishments and Probability of

Success on Intensive Supervision

Widahl, E. J., Garland, B. Culhane, S. E., and McCarty, W.P. (2011). Utilizing Behavioral Interventions to Improve Supervision

Outcomes in Community-Based Corrections. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38 (4).

List of Rewards and Sanctions Sanctions

• Verbal reprimand

• Written assignment

• Modify curfew hours

• Community service hours

• Restrict visitation

• Program extension or

regression

• Electronic Monitoring

• Inpatient or outpatient txt

• Detention time

Rewards

• Verbal praise and

reinforcement

• Remove from EM

• Level advancement

• Increased personal time

• Approved special activity

• Fees reduced

• Approve of extend special

visitation

Widahl, E. J., Garland, B. Culhane, S. E., and McCarty, W.P. (2011). Utilizing Behavioral Interventions to Improve Supervision

Outcomes in Community-Based Corrections. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38 (4).

These approaches help us….

• Structure our interventions

• Teach and model new skills

• Allow offender to practice with graduated

difficulty

• Reinforce the behavior

What Doesn’t Work with

Offenders?

Lakota tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead

horse, the best strategy is to dismount. However, in corrections, and in

other affairs, we often try other strategies, including the following:

• Buy a stronger whip.

• Change riders

• Say things like “This is the way we always have ridden this horse.”

• Appoint a committee to study the horse.

• Arrange to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.

• Create a training session to increase our riding ability.

• Harness several dead horses together for increased speed.

• Declare that “No horse is too dead to beat.”

• Provide additional funding to increase the horse’s performance.

• Declare the horse is “better, faster, and cheaper” dead.

• Study alternative uses for dead horses.

• Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.

Ineffective Approaches with Offenders • Programs that cannot maintain fidelity

• Programs that target non-criminogenic needs

• 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.)

Fidelity Principle

Making sure the program is delivered as designed and with integrity:

• Ensure staff are modeling appropriate behavior, are qualified, well trained, well supervision, etc.

• Make sure barriers are addressed but target criminogenic needs

• Make sure appropriate dosage of treatment is provided

• Monitor delivery of programs & activities, etc.

• Reassess offenders in meeting target behaviors

Some Lessons Learned from the

Research

Who you put in a program is important – pay attention to risk

What you target is important – pay attention to criminogenic needs

How you target offender for change is important – use behavioral approaches

Program Integrity makes a difference - Service

delivery, training/supervision of staff, support for

program, QA, evaluation, etc.

Documents

What Works and What Doesn’t in Reducing · What Works and What Doesn’t in Reducing Recidivism with Offenders: Understanding the Principles of Effective Intervention Presented