effective-interventions-to-reduce-recidivism_csgjc_82819_final

Criminal Justice Support for New Administrations Webinar Effective Interventions to Reduce Recidivism: What Does the Evidence Tell Us? Jennifer Kisela, Deputy Program Director, The Council of State Governments Justice Center August 28, 2019 Supported by

Overview Introduction WHO: Targeting the right people WHAT: Using the right programs and practices HOW WELL: Ensuring quality and effectiveness

About the project Recognizing that newly elected governors must tackle many competing priorities, project partners are offering support to new administrations to help assess state criminal justice systems and create a concrete plan to achieve large-scale criminal justice reform.

This support enables states to build on past achievements, identify best practices and innovative approaches to address ongoing challenges, and lead new endeavors with messages that will resonate at local, state, and national levels.

The Council of State Governments Justice Center Mission We develop research-driven strategies to increase public safety and strengthen communities.

Who We Are We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that combines the power of a membership association, representing state officials in all three branches of government, with the expertise of a policy and research team focused on assisting others to attain measurable results.

Association of State Correctional Administrators Vision Excellence in corrections through exceptional leadership.

Mission We are united in our commitment of promoting the profession of corrections, supporting each other, and influencing policy and practices that affect public safety.

Objectives

Promote the profession of corrections Support ASCA members Influence policy and practices that affect public safety

National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA) NCJA promotes the development of justice systems that enhance public safety, prevent and reduce the harmful effects of criminal and delinquent behavior, adjudicate defendants and sanction offenders fairly and justly, and are effective and efficient. §

Maintains focus on the needs of the criminal and juvenile justice systems;

§

Represents justice system concerns to the federal government;

§

Supports development of criminal and juvenile justice policy for the nation’s governors and tribal leaders; and

§

Coordinates education, community and social service systems, law enforcement and criminal justice measures to support all levels of government and achieve public safety goals.

National Governors Association (NGA)

7

Presenter Jennifer Kisela, deputy program director, has provided technical assistance in eight states, offering content expertise in the areas of evidence-based practices, risk assessment, programming, and quality assurance. With almost 20 years in the field, Jennifer has provided direct services to individuals in the criminal justice system by delivering mental health case management, facilitating cognitive behavioral programming, managing a residential community corrections program, and administering a research and continuous quality improvement department.

Jennifer holds a BA in justice studies from Kent State University and an MA in criminal justice from the University of Cincinnati.

Reducing recidivism is about targeting the right people, using the right programs and practices, and ensuring quality and effectiveness.

RECIDIVISM REDUCTION

WHO

WHAT

HOW WELL

Target Population

Type of Practices and Programs

Program Quality and Effectiveness

Overview Introduction WHO: Targeting the right people WHAT: Using the right programs and practices HOW WELL: Ensuring quality and effectiveness

Criminogenic risk and needs assessment (RNA) tells us whom to target.

An actuarial instrument used to predict the likelihood of future criminal behavior (often defined in terms of reoffending) Risk level is not an indicator of: ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠

Dangerousness Severity of offense Guarantee of reoffending or non-offending Offense specific reoffending

Risk and need assessments are used at multiple points in the criminal justice system.

Pretrial

ü Failure to Appear ü Reoffending

Presentence

ü Reoffending ü Needs

Prison

ü Reoffending ü Needs

Parole Release

Supervision

ü Reoffending ü Needs

ü Reoffending ü Needs

The use of RNA with the addition of structured professional discretion yields the best outcomes.

Grove et al. found:

}

Studies show that seasoned professionals who rely exclusively on their experience and professional judgment predict recidivism at rates no better than chance.

~

64 studies found actuarial assessment to be superior at predicting recidivism rates.

Only 8 studies found clinical judgment to be superior at predicting recidivism rates.

Source: National Institute of Corrections, 2011; Grove et al. 2000. Clinical Versus Mechanical Prediction: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Assessment.

V12 (1), 19-30.

Risk and need assessments sort people into categories based on likelihood of committing more crime.

Without RNA‌

With RNA‌

Risk of Reoffending Low Risk

Moderate Risk

High Risk

Typically 1/3rd of the population falls into each category.

Risk and need assessments consist of static and dynamic risk factors.

Static Risk Factors • Criminal history • Past offense categories • Current offense • Age at first arrest • Gender

Dynamic Risk Factors • • • • • • •

Criminal thinking Criminal friends/associates Criminal personality pattern Substance use Family/marital functioning School/employment Leisure/recreation

Research has demonstrated several principles related to risk.

Empirically validated risk and needs instruments can improve prediction of future criminal behavior.

As level of risk increases, the amount of treatment and services should increase.

Length of programming and supervision is most effective when tied to risk.

Intensive services should be offered to moderate- and high-risk individuals.

Low-risk people should receive minimal services.

Source: D.A. Andrews and J.Bonta. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 5th Ed. (New York, New York: Routledge, 2010.

Failing to adhere to the risk principle can actually increase recidivism for people assessed as low risk.

Average Difference in Recidivism by Risk for Individuals in Ohio Halfway House Increased Recidivism

Do well with minimal intervention

Low Risk + 3%

Protective factors are disrupted with intensive services and supervision Moderate Risk - 6%

High Risk - 14%

Learn more ingrained criminal behaviors when put with higher-risk individuals

Decreased Recidivism

Sources: Presentation by Dr. Ed Latessa, “What Works and What Doesn’t in Reducing Recidivism: Applying the Principles of Effective Intervention to Offender Reentry;” D.A. Andrews and J. Bonta. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 5th Ed. (New York, New York: Routledge, 2010).

Key considerations to target the right people •

Risk and need assessment should be validated. §

• •

•

•

Gender, race

Validation studies should take place every 5 years.

RNA should be used at different junctures in the system.

Agencies should increase services as risk level increases.

Agencies should increase supervision as risk level increases.

High Services/ Moderate Supervision Intensity Low Risk Low

Moderate

High

Key policy options that help ensure state resources target the right people 1

2

Require risk and need assessment to be validated on your state population and ensure that validations include breakdowns by race and gender.

3

Encourage supervision strategies and programs to target by risk level.

+

4

Train stakeholders across the criminal justice and behavioral health systems on risk and need assessments.

+

Require the use of risk and need assessments at each stage of the criminal justice system.

+

+

Overview Introduction WHO: Targeting the right people WHAT: Using the right programs and practices HOW WELL: Ensuring quality and effectiveness

Criminogenic needs tell us what we should be targeting with programs and services.

Most predictive

Domains History of Criminal Behavior Antisocial Attitudes, Values, and Beliefs Antisocial Peers Antisocial Personality Characteristics Lack of Employment Stability and Educational Achievement Family and/or Marital Stressors Substance Use

Least predictive

Lack of Prosocial Leisure Activities

Adapted from: Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J., and Wormith, S.J. (2006).

The “Big 4�

Targeting criminogenic need areas can be accomplished at multiple decision-making points.

Condition Setting Tailor special conditions to need areas identified as “high risk” or as a “significant problem.”

Case Planning Focus case planning goals on identified criminogenic need areas to proactively address needs prior to violation behavior.

Programming/Referrals Ensure programming is addressing the “Big 4” criminogenic needs.

Programs, treatment, and services should meet the unique needs of people in the criminal justice system.

Changes in Recidivism by Program Type Decreases Recidivism

Increases Recidivism Cognitive behavioral with graduated skills practice

-26%

Cognitive (no behavioral) Psycho-educational Journaling +8%

Punishment-oriented

Programs should utilize cognitive behavioral approaches regardless of area of focus (e.g., criminal thinking, substance use, sex offender).

Skill building with structured skills practice is an essential component of effective programs.

Women should receive genderresponsive services with a traumainformed approach.

Sources: Mark Lipsey, “The Primary Factors that Characterize Effective Interventions with Juvenile Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Overview, Victims & Offenders: An International Journal of EvidenceBased Research, Policy, and Practice, 4, no. 2 (2009): 124-147. D.A. Andrews and J. Bonta. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 5th Ed. (New York, New York: Routledge, 2010).

Cognitive behavioral approaches should be used in addition to accountability measures to promote positive behavior change.

Swift

Sanctions are quick. Limit the time between violation and consequence.

Punishment Is Not Enough Punishment stops behavior

Certain

Sanctions are predictable. Consequences are not random. There are set responses for certain violations.

Fair and Appropriate

The severity and duration of a response to a violation is proportionate to the violation.

Use of reinforcement and cognitive behavioral interventions (CBI) teaches new skills and promotes long-term behavior change • • • •

Case planning Homework assignments Referral for treatment or programming Programming focus at sanction facility

There are challenges inherent in balancing punishment and behavior change.

Pretrial detention: More than 1 day

Failure-to-appear rates for low-risk people Recidivism for lowand moderate-risk people

Community-Based Sanctions vs.

Jail Sanctions Both have the same: ü Time to next violation ü # of subsequent violations ü Likelihood of successful completion of supervision

Prison:

Not shown to reduce recidivism § Increasing severity of punishment does little to deter crime. § Certainty of being caught is more powerful deterrent than punishment. § Prison may exacerbate recidivism.

Sources: Christopher T Lowenkamp, Marie VanNostrand, and Alexander Holsinger, The Hidden Costs of Pretrial Detention, Laura and John Arnold Foundation, 2013. E.J. Wodahl et al. (2015). Responding to probation and parole violations: Are jail sanctions more effective than community-based graduated sanctions? Journal of Criminal Justice, 43: 242-250. National Institute of Justice (2016) Five Things about Deterrence. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf

Risk and need assessments are used at multiple points in the criminal justice system to assist in decision-making.

Pretrial

OUTPUT: ü Failure to Appear ü Reoffending DECISIONMAKING:

v Release v Supervision

Presentence

ü Reoffending ü Needs v Condition Setting

Prison

ü Reoffending ü Needs v Programming Referral v Institutional and Reentry Case Planning

Parole Release

Supervision

ü Reoffending ü Needs v Release v Reentry Planning v Condition Setting

ü Reoffending ü Needs v v v v v

Supervision Level Referrals Case Planning Violation Response Early Release

Key considerations for what to target •

Supervision agencies and institutions should target criminogenic needs identified on the risk and need assessment.

•

Case plans should be based on criminogenic needs.

•

Supervision officers and institutional case managers should utilize cognitive behavioral interventions during one-on-one meetings.

•

Programming and treatment modalities should be cognitive behavioral and gender responsive.

•

Incentives should be used four times more often than sanctions to promote and sustain behavior change.

•

Criminogenic needs should be used by judges and paroling authorities to drive conditions of supervision.

Key policy options to ensure that state resources are used for the right programs and practices 1

2

Require training on best practices to target criminogenic needs.

3

Invest in programming and treatment that is cognitive behavioral and proven effective.

+

4

Require supervision agencies to use behavior management systems that include incentives and respond proportionately to technical violations. +

+

Ensure the parole board has a structured release decisionmaking process that includes completion of programs proven to reduce recidivism.

+

Overview Introduction WHO: Targeting the right people WHAT: Using the right programs and practices HOW WELL: Ensuring quality and effectiveness

Utilize quality assurance, staff coaching, and program evaluations to ensure effectiveness (how well). ü Risk and need assessments ü One-on-one meetings ü Case planning ü Programming including clinical treatment services ü Service providers

Staff selection, training, and ongoing staff development improve outcomes.

Corrections and supervision agencies should conduct initial staff training on curricula by appropriately trained or licensed individuals as recommended by the program developer.

Agencies should also conduct annual staff training on evidence-based practices and service delivery for participants in a correctional setting.

Change in Recidivism by Quality of Facilitation of Cognitive Behavioral Program +1%

Poorly Run

Well Run

– 6.3%

Source: Latessa, Edward J. "What Works and What Doesn't in Reducing Recidivism: Applying the Principles of Effective Intervention in Ohio." Presentation.

Programs are more effective at reducing recidivism when run with fidelity to the original program model.

Changes in Recidivism by Integrity to Program Model Decreases Recidivism

On instruments that measure how well a program is implemented, programs that have more integrity to their original model have greater reductions in recidivism.

Increases Recidivism 60% integrity or higher

-16%

40 – 59% integrity

-12%

20 – 39% integrity

-2%

+15%

0 – 19% integrity

Source: Latessa, Edward J. "What Works and What Doesn't in Reducing Recidivism: Applying the Principles of Effective Intervention in Ohio."

Presentation.

Use data to ensure that outcomes are achieved to reduce recidivism.

Adopt a data system that tracks day-to-day practices and outcomes.

Monitor staff proficiency in use of evidence-based practices Use data to inform decision-making related to training, programming, and implementing new practices.

Share data and outcomes with staff in an easily digestible manner, and integrate data sharing into standard operating procedures.

Key considerations for addressing how well programs and practices are implemented •

Institute quality assurance and continuous quality improvement processes.

•

Ensure trainings are followed by staff coaching.

•

Tie knowledge and performance expectations to job description and performance evaluations.

•

Conduct program evaluations on a regular basis to ensure quality and effectiveness.

•

Evaluate how data is used to improve outcomes.

Key policy options to ensure that states are implementing high-quality programs and practices over the long term

1

2

Develop program standards or oversight boards to ensure quality services.

3

Require program evaluations to ensure a return on investments.

+

4

Use data dashboards to view data across agencies to understand system functioning.

+

Standardize recidivism measures across state agencies.

+

+

Thank You! Join our distribution list to receive updates and announcements: www.csgjusticecenter.org/subscribe For more information please contact Jennifer Kisela at jkisela@csg.org The presentation was developed by members of The Council of State Governments Justice Center staff. The statements made reflect the views of the authors, and should not be considered the official position of The Council of State Governments Justice Center, the members of The Council of State Governments, or the funding agency supporting the work. Š 2019 The Council of State Governments Justice Center