Articulate Word Output - NY DCJS€¦ · Web viewThird, they include techniques to reinforce...

What Works_DCJS edits -11-15

1. Module 01b - What Works in Correctional Intervention_2

(FORMATTED 4.13.15)

1.1 What Works

Notes:

Welcome to the e-learning training module on What Works in Correctional Intervention. In this module you will be introduced to the characteristics of effective correctional programs. We will be discussing what types of correctional practices are most likely to succeed in reducing offender behavior.

Published by Articulate® Storyline www.articulate.com

1.2 How to Use This Module

Notes:

Before we begin, please take a few moments to review how the presentation works. The core concepts and visuals in this module are intended for use with accompanying in-depth explanations of each slide topic. The in-depth information can be accessed in 3 ways, depending on learner preference: Module Notes, Audio, and Module Script. Each option contains the same information. Once the audio for each slide has ended, use the navigational buttons located at the bottom of the module presentation window to advance to the next slide.


1.3 Table of Contents

Notes:

As you can see from the Table of Contents, the module compares effective programs (those most likely to reduce offender recidivism) to ineffective ones (those which either do not change offender behavior or those which may even increase the offender’s likelihood of committing new offenses). We will also explore the types of offender problems which programs should be most concerned with.

Section 1: Introduction to What Works In Corrections: Why Consult Research?

Section 2: Correlates of Criminal Conduct: Who Should be in Our Programs?

Section 3: The Principles of Effective Correctional Intervention

Section 4: What Doesn’t Work with Offenders?

Section 5: Summary of What Works in Programming

Section 6: Review of Learning Objectives


1.4 Learning Objectives

Notes:

Over the course of these slides, we hope to:

1. Review the latest research methods and research findings on effective correctional interventions

2. Review the correlates of criminal conduct, including major risk factors3. Learn the importance of the risk, need, and responsivity principles4. Learn the components of cognitive behavioral interventions5. Develop a clear understanding of what does not work with offenders6.Learn the characteristics of effective correctional programs


1.5 Section 1

Notes:

Section 1: Introduction to What Works in Corrections: Why consult the research?How do we know what types of programs and practices work best to reduce offender recidivism? Clearly, effective agencies do not implement a new intervention before they have seen evidence of its effectiveness. They do not follow hunches, politically driven panaceas, or other vague notions. Instead, they consult the research on correctional effectiveness.

Program Directors are much more confident when they use correctional practices that are known through research to reduce recidivism rather than when they operate according to practices which have no evidence of effectiveness.This section describes the types of research that we need in order to obtain the most rigorous forms of evidence.


1.6 Are Correctional Programs Effective?

Notes:

While research is crucial to correctional decision-making, one of the problems with research is that we can often find a study to support just about anything.

For example, if we believed every study about what food is bad for us, we would be overly fearful of most, if not all, of the food we consume.

The problem of course is that studies often conflict with each other, and as a result we often don’t know what to believe.

People ask, “Do halfway houses reduce recidivism?” “Does treatment for sex-offenders work?” and so on. There are some halfway houses that reduce recidivism, and some that don’t. The same is true for sex offender programs, as well as for many of the different types of rehabilitation programs that we operate for offenders. As you will learn, who we place in the program, and what the program targets also play a big role in reducing recidivism. The third part of this equation is the “how” we target these factors. As it turns out, some approaches are more effective than others.


1.7 Reviews of Research

Notes:

Given all the research that is conducted and the contradictions that occur sometimes in the findings, what do we know about efforts to reduce recidivism? Looking at just one study can be a mistake, and besides, there are often limitations to research, especially evaluations that are conducted in the real world (limited sample size, lack of adequate control groups, program changes over time, etc.). One of the ways we attempt to address these problems is by looking at a body of knowledge. For example, most of us believe that cigarette smoking is bad for our health. How do we know this? You might answer “Research”; but don’t you think that given the hundreds of studies that have been conducted, there aren’t studies out there that say that cigarette smoking is not that bad? These few studies may have been funded by the tobacco industry, but if you wanted to justify smoking based on research, you can probably find these studies out there. The reason that most of us believe that smoking is harmful is because there is a body of knowledge concerning smoking and health that says that if you smoke you increase your chances of cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and so forth. We also have a pretty good body of knowledge surrounding correctional interventions, and as it turns out, there are some pretty good ways to summarize large bodies of research.

There are three ways that scholars summarize research: literature reviews, ballot counting, and meta-analysis. You likely are all familiar with literature reviews; read all the studies you can find and attempt to summarize the research. This is the most common approach, and obviously it has some limitations (studies chosen to review, bias of reviewer, no quantifiable summary statistics, etc.).


Ballot counting is where you find all the studies you can on a particular subject and then count the results; if more show negative results than positive then you have a winner. This is the approach that Martinson used in the 1970s to declare, “nothing worked” in correctional rehabilitation. This approach is also problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it more or less ignores the studies that do show a positive effect. The third approach is called meta-analysis.

1.8 Advantages and Limitations of Meta-Analyses

Notes:

Meta-analysis is now the favored approach to reviewing large numbers of studies. In contrast to literature reviews and ballot counting, meta-analyses are tests which statistically summarize a body of research. Researchers collect all of the controlled studies that they can find on the topic of interest. Controlled studies are where the results of the experimental group are compared to a comparison group of similar participants. These studies comprise the sample and the meta-analysis computes an effect size that summarizes all of the studies. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of this approach are listed on this slide. Meta-analysis is very helpful in summarizing the research, and since it yields an “effect size”, it can show the relative strength of the intervention or subject under study. Meta-analysis is a blunt instrument since it cannot correct deficiencies or limitations in original research, but it can point us in the right direction. The purpose is not to go into this technique in detail, but rather to show you how it can help us review the research. For example, the “file drawer” problem suggests that if unpublished studies were included in the meta-analysis,


the effect size estimate would be smaller.

1.9 Criminal Sanctions vs. Treatment

Notes:

Here is an important example of the value of meta-analyses. This graph shows a meta-analysis that demonstrates the overall effect size of criminal sanctions or official punishment, such as jail time or mandatory arrests versus treatment. As you can see, just punishing offenders produces a slightly negative effect size, while treatment shows a reduction in recidivism with a positive effect size of .15. This result is similar to what other scholars have found in studies from Europe and North America. What do we take from these results? That a statistical summary of a large body of research (154 studies), shows us that punishment without programming, does nothing to change offender behavior. Of course, policy makers may continue to feel that punishment is an appropriate response to crime, but if they value reducing future crimes something more is needed. The goal of changing offender behavior is best achieved by the treatment programs we plan for offenders. We can place a lot of confidence in these findings.


1.10 Behavioral vs. Non-behavioral

Notes:

The next graph shows what happens when treatment is divided into two basic types: non-behavioral and behavioral. The effect size of non-behavioral treatment is .07, but jumps to .29 for behavioral programming. This is clearly the direction we want to head when we develop correctional intervention programs. Unfortunately, many of the programs we operate in corrections are non-behavioral (i.e. drug education).


1.11 Behavioral Programs

Notes:

So what are behavioral programs? Behavioral programs have several important characteristics. First, they focus on the present not the past-they target and change current risk factors that influence behavior. Second, they are action- rather than talk- oriented. Offenders learn and practice new prosocial behavior and skills to replace the antisocial ones they have learned. Third, they include techniques to reinforce appropriate behavior and extinguish or punish inappropriate behavior. So the first piece of the “what works” puzzle tells us that correctional programs can have an appreciable effect on recidivism, and that behavioral programs are the most effective.


1.12 Section 2

Notes:

Section 2: Correlates of Criminal Conduct: Who should be in our programs?

In designing effective correctional practices it is also important to think about what types of offender problems to address in treatment programs. Importantly, we will not reduce offender recidivism unless we target a problem that is a risk factor or correlate of crime. Risk factor and correlate, in this case, mean the same thing---that the offender problem or characteristic increases the offenders’ risk of future offending. Sometimes, we will also use the term “predictor.”


1.13 Risk Factors

Notes:

Factors correlated with criminal conduct are also known as risk factors. How are risk factors identified is a critical question and one that criminologists have been wrestling with since criminology began. The first person to study criminals scientifically was Cesare Lombroso, who wrote Criminal Man in 1876. Lombroso had personally studied over 5,000 Italian criminals and based on his studies, believed that about one-third of all offenders were “born” criminal or were what he called “atavistic throwbacks”. Lombroso believed that the born criminal could be identified through a number of factors: excessive hairiness, sloping foreheads, tattoos, solitary line in the palm of the hand, and other attributes.

Despite the popularity at the time of this theory, Lombroso was wrong and his work was flawed. The reason he is important, however, is that he was the first person to try to study criminals scientifically. Since Lombroso, there have been hundreds if not thousands of studies. Of course this is part of the problem. If you start reading this literature it will take years and when you are done you will be just as confused as when you started. For every study that says something is a risk factor there is another that says it isn’t. So what do we believe? Fortunately, through the use of meta-analysis, researchers have been able to review large numbers of studies and determine effect sizes (how strong factors are in predicting risk).

What we do know is this:


Risk factors with larger effect sizes are better at predicting potential risk of future offending behavior, and;

Factors such as lower social class and personal distress are less predictive of recidivism than factors such as antisocial attitudes and antisocial associates.

Let’s review some studies.

1.14 Factors Correlated with Risk

Notes:

The table on this slide shows a meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism. The factor is the predictor, the mean r is the average correlation, and the n is the number of studies included in the analysis. For those of you who have not had statistics, the r is a value that shows the strength of a correlation between two or more variables. The higher the value, the stronger the relationship. The highest it can be is 1, and the lowest is 0, so a .3 is stronger than a .2 and so forth. If we look at lower class origins (the side of the tracks you were born on), we can see that there were 97 studies, which produced an r of .06 when averaged together. This doesn’t mean that you can’t find a study among the 97 that found a stronger relationship between lower class origins and risk, but when taken all together, it appears that lower class status is a relatively minor predictor. On the other hand, antisocial attitudes and associates is much stronger.


1.15 Meta-Analysis of Factors

Notes:

Here is a similar analysis. As can be seen in this table, the family factor is broken into two areas, family structure/parental problems and poor parent-child relations. While family structure is positively correlated with risk, the relationship is not very strong (.07). Conversely, poor parent-child relations is about three times stronger (.20) of a predictor. This means that while family structure (e.g. coming from a single parent family for instance) is correlated with delinquency, it is not nearly as important as coming from a “bad” family. The order of factors in this study was very similar to the last example.


1.16 Major Set of Risk/Need Factors

Notes:

This and other research has led Andrews and Bonta to identify a major set of risk factors. This slide and the next show the eight major risk factors, or correlates of criminal conduct, starting with antisocial or procriminal attitudes, values, and beliefs. This risk factor manifests itself in several important ways: negative expressions about the law, about conventional institutions, about self-management of behavior, and a lack of empathy and sensitivity toward others. In addition, offenders often minimize or neutralize their behavior. Neutralizations are a set of verbalizations, which function to say that, in particular situations, it is okay to violate the law. Neutralization techniques include: Denial of responsibility - where criminal acts are due to factors beyond the control of the individual (i.e. I was drunk, some dude told me I could borrow his car, etc.). The denial of injury - where the offender admits responsibility for the act, but minimizes the extent of harm or denies any harm was done (i.e. yeah, I beat him up, but he only went to the hospital so he could collect unemployment). Denial of the victim - which reverses the role of the offender and victim and blames the victim (i.e. she knows not to nag me, I’m really the victim here). System bashing - those who disapprove of the offenders act are defined as immoral hypocritical or criminal themselves (i.e. everyone uses drugs, I just got caught) and appeal to hire loyalties - where the demands of larger society are sacrificed for the demands of more immediate loyalties (i.e. me and my boys have a different set of rules we live by).

The second major risk factor is one that we are all familiar with - having procriminal friends and a lack of prosocial friends and acquaintances. As our


mothers all knew, who you hang around with is very important. Friends often act as role models, provide the context, and provide the reinforcement for criminal behavior.

The third major risk factor is one that is often ignored in assessment; temperamental and personality factors. The first two are often associated with offenders who are referred to as psychopaths. While there are psychopathic offenders, this label should be used with caution, for once applied, it can be difficult to shed. The majority of offenders are not psychopaths. Please note that egocentrism is correlated with risk. Many offenders are self-centered and have an inflated sense of self rather than the commonly held perception that offenders suffer from low self-esteem. Studies are finding that criminals are more likely to be characterized as negative or hostile in interpersonal relationships, lack of empathy, and lacking in self-control. However, personality is most likely working in tandem with other risk factors such as peers and attitudes. Just being egocentric will not make someone high risk for criminal conduct.

The fourth major risk factor in the one that is most commonly used - history. This of course includes criminal history and other antisocial behavior. While history is a very strong predictor of future behavior, it has its limitations. The first limitation is that it’s not very dynamic, and while it is useful for prediction, it does not provide much direction as to the targets for change. The other limitation of history is that one has to have the history before it can be used in prediction. For example, it is not difficult to predict that someone who has four or five prior DUI offenses has a drinking problem and might drink and drive again. At one point, however, that person had his or her first DUI. Undoubtedly that person probably had a number of other risk factors; however, since he or she had no history of DUI offenses, we would have had little to base prediction if we relied primarily on history. Again, this is not to say that history is not a very strong (if not the strongest) predictor of future behavior. Life course studies indicate that by age 12, up to 40% of later serious offenders have committed their first criminal act; by age 14, up to 85% have committed their first criminal act.


1.17 Major Set of Risk/Need Factors

Notes:

The fifth major risk factor involves family factors, including criminal behavior in the immediate family, and a number of other problems such as low levels of affection, poor parental supervision, and out right neglect and abuse.

The 6th major risk factor includes low levels of personal educational, vocational, and financial achievement - essentially work and school are correlated with risk. Getting an offender a job or an education is important for several reasons (structures time, gets them around prosocial people, helps them support family and self), but if one thinks that working is for chumps, shows up late for work all the time, fights with his/her boss or co-workers, and so forth, how long will he/she last on the job?

The 7th major risk factor is low levels of involvement in prosocial leisure activities. An offender having too much idle time can be problematic. An offender who is not involved with activities that are mainly prosocial may lead to too much unstructured free time. An offender is more at risk to have interaction with higher risk antisocial peers who are in similar situations. Instead of working they may be involved in more criminal activities. For example, an offender who does not have employment may not be at his home throughout the night, that offender may be roaming the streets all night long and sleeps throughout the day. This offender is not pursuing any education or employment during this time and is more involved in the dangers of street life. The end result is the offenders will replace prosocial behavior with antisocial behavior.


Finally, the eighth risk factor is the abuse of alcohol and/or other drugs. This often allows for the interaction with antisocial peers, impacts social skills, and, in the case of illicit drugs, is illegal in and of itself. The offenders social skills and thinking patterns shift focus on how they will be obtaining alcohol or other drugs.

Can you see why attitudes and values are so important to identifying and reducing risk? It is a critical factor in determining how we behave.

1.18 Pennsylvania Parole Study

Notes:

Bucklen and Zajac completed a study of the causes and correlates of parole success and failure in Pennsylvania. They conducted surveys, interviews, and focus groups with parole violators and parole successes through the collection of data on employment, housing, social relations, supervision, and parolees’ responses to parole challenges.

The criminogenic factors related to failure were found to be antisocial attitudes, poor problem-solving and coping skills, and unrealistic expectations about life after release from prison.



Notes:

Focusing on the social network and living arrangement domain, 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

These results show the significance of parolees needing prosocial, meaningful established relationships with those in the community. Without these types of relationships, parolees will continue to associate with those that will reinforce an antisocial lifestyle which could lead to increased criminal behavior.



Notes:

Focusing on Employment and Financial Situation domain, 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)

These results indicate how targeting these risk areas while in programming could teach prosocial attitudes, values, and beliefs in offenders and strengthen or develop general problem-solving skills that may be particularly effective in discouraging parole violations. Programming should focus more attention on teaching offenders specific and transferable life skills such as budgeting and money management techniques and job management skills.



Notes:

Focusing on Alcohol or Drug Use domain, violators were:

More likely to report use of alcohol or drugs while on parole (but no difference in prior assessment of dependency problem)

Lack of problem solving skills or poor management of stress was a primary contributing factor to relapse



Notes:

Focusing on the Life on Parole domain, violators:

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

The main findings from this domain show a significant relationship between negative emotional experiences and parole violating that can be explained by three other variables: (a) post release expectations, (b) attitudinal disposition, and (c) coping/problem-solving ability. These factors are a product of individual offenders’ attitudes and perceptions and of their skill in dealing with them. This suggests that criminogenic needs such as antisocial attitudes, values and beliefs,


poor decision-making and problem-solving skills are critical determinants of parole success or failure.

1.23 Pennsylvania Parole Violator Study

Notes:

The Pennsylvania Parole Violator Study results showed that: Successes and failures did not differ in difficulty in finding a place to live after

release Successes and failures were equally likely to report eventually obtaining a job

However, simply finding a job did not appear to differentiate parole successes from parole violators, other aspects of employment did substantially differ between the two groups. Those that were successful reported being employed the entire time they were on parole. This shows those that were successful on parole were more successful at keeping a job and had a level of job satisfaction.


1.24 A Large Body of Research Has Indicated….

Notes:

A large body of research has indicated that 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) Responsivity (How)

The following slides will focus on the significance of the principles of effective intervention when dealing with offenders.


1.25 Section 3

Notes:

Section 3: The Principles of Effective Intervention: How do we set the research into practice?How shall we put the research that we have seen to this point into practice? The research on correctional effectiveness can be distilled into some guidelines for correctional programs. In order to learn more about the application of this research, scholars have developed some principles-they refer to these as “The Principles of Correctional Intervention.” Let’s now review these principles.


1.26 The Risk Principle

Notes:

The risk principle involves using risk assessment instruments to classify offenders according to their risk of future offending---that is, we need to identify who is high, medium, or low risk of committing a new offense. Once we have identified the offenders’ risk levels, we can then match them to interventions and supervision levels that are appropriate to their level of risk. This risk principle and the assessment tell us who should be in our programs. The Risk Principle states that intensive offender programming should be focused primarily on higher risk offenders. The reason is simple-they have the highest risk of re-offending. Besides, why should we devote resources to those offenders who have a low probability of coming back again? Here is another way to think about it. Suppose that half of all offenders who leave prison never return. Are we worried about this group? Well, not as much as the half that will return. This is the group we are most concerned about and the one where we should place most of our efforts. This is not only a question of priorities but also one of effectiveness. A number of studies have shown that placing lower risk offenders into intensive programs and higher levels of supervision can actually increase their failure rates. At the same time, we have our highest treatment effects among high risk offenders. Seems odd, but if high risk offenders receive appropriate programming, they tend to achieve the greatest reductions in recidivism. Low risk offenders in the same programs seem to do worse.


Of course, in order to meet this principle, it is necessary to have a valid and reliable risk assessment.

1.27 The Risk Principle

Notes:

The Risk Principle states:

Risk refers to risk of reoffending and not the seriousness of the offense.

As a general rule treatment effects are stronger if we target higher risk offenders, and harm can be done to low risk offenders

When we place low-risk offenders in the more intense correctional interventions we are likely exposing them to higher risk offenders-and the learning that is transmitted is often antisocial

The risk principle suggests that effective correctional interventions should vary the intensity of treatment by offender risk, with higher risk offenders receiving more intense services than lower risk offenders.


1.28 Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community Supervision Sample

Notes:

This graph indicates the higher risk the offender is, the more likely they are to recidivate.

The low risk offenders (0-14) are less likely to recidivate than those in the high (24-33) and very high (34+) ranges. Simply put, when working with offenders, those that are higher in risk should receive more intensive services that can reduce their risk to break the law again.


1.29 There are Three Elements to the

Notes:

There are three elements to the risk principle:

1. Target those offenders with higher probability of recidivism. The risk principle stipulates that offenders should be matched to supervision level and treatment based on their level of risk

2. Provide most intensive treatment to higher risk offenders. When we are able to identify the higher risk offender, providing an appropriate response that can reduce that risk, we can achieve a level of public protection through risk reduction.

3. Intensive treatment for lower risk offender can increase recidivism. When we place low-risk offenders in the more intense correctional interventions we are likely exposing them to higher risk offenders-and the learning that is transmitted is often antisocial


1.30 Targeting Higher Risk Offenders

Notes:

When targeting higher risk offenders:

It is important to understand that even with evidence based programs (EBP) there will be failures.

Even if you reduce recidivism rates you will still have high percentage of failures

The next slide will provide an example of these recidivism rates.


1.31 Example of Targeting Higher Risk Offenders

Notes:

In the first scenario:If you have 100 High risk offenders about 60% will failIf you put them in well designed EBP (evidence based program) for a sufficient duration you may reduce failure rate to 40%

In the second scenario:If you have 100 low risk offenders about 10% will failIf you put them in same program failure rate will increase to 20%

This example shows that the best designed programs may reduce recidivism in one group of people (the high risk offenders), but at the same time you could increase the recidivism rates for those low risk offenders who were put in the same program as the high risk ones.


1.32 Targeting Higher Risk Offenders continued:

Notes:

So, in the end, who had the lower recidivism rate?

The mistake we make is comparing high risk to low risk rather than look for treatment effects.

Tailoring is essential because the same interventions are not equally effective for all types of offenders. This means providing more treatment to the higher risk offender and less to the lower risk offender.


1.33 Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision in Canada

Notes:

This figure shows the results from a study of intensive rehabilitation supervision in Canada. Risk was assessed using a risk assessment tool called the Level of Service Inventory or LSI. The data showed that higher risk offenders who were placed in the intensive rehabilitation supervision program had a 32% recidivism rate after the two- year follow-up. Higher risk offenders who were not placed in the program had a 51% recidivism rate. This is a 19% point reduction in recidivism for higher risk offenders. Not bad. However, low risk offenders who were placed in the treatment program reported the same recidivism rate as their high-risk counterparts. Conversely, lower risk offenders who were not placed in the program had a recidivism rate almost 20% lower. The intensive rehabilitation supervision program worked for higher risk offenders, but actually increased recidivism rates for lower risk offenders. In fact, the lower risk offenders were 18% more likely to get in trouble again by receiving treatment. How could this happen? Before we answer this question let’s look at another very recent study from here in the United States.


1.34 Study of Community Correctional Programs in Ohio

Notes:

The risk principle can be seen more dramatically in a study that Chris Lowenkamp and Dr. Latessa conducted in Ohio. This study is the largest ever conducted of community-based correctional treatment facilities. They tracked a total of 13,221 offenders who were placed in one of 37 halfway houses and 15 community-based correctional facilities throughout the state. A two-year follow-up was conducted on all offenders. Recidivism measures included new arrests and incarceration in state penal institutions.

The first experimental group consisted of 3,700 offenders coming out of prison who were sent to one of 37 halfway houses. The second group consisted of 3,600 probationers who were diverted from prison and sent to one of 15 community-based correctional facilities. They matched a comparison group consisting of 5,800 offenders released from prison who were not placed in a program, but received only straight supervision.


1.35 Treatment Effects for Low Risk Offenders

Notes:

Let’s examine the data. This figure shows the effect for low risk offenders using incarceration as the outcome measure. At the bottom of the figure are all of the programs included in our study. The red bars, or negative numbers, show those programs that increased recidivism rates for low risk offenders. The black bars, or positive numbers, show those few programs that actually reduced recidivism for low risk offenders. As you can see from this figure the majority of programs in Ohio actually increased the failure rates for low risk offenders. Only a handful of programs reduced recidivism for this group, and the best was 9%.


1.36 Treatment Effects for High Risk Offenders

Notes:

This figure shows the results for high-risk offenders. Not only did most programs reduce recidivism for this group, but we also have eight programs that reduce recidivism over 20% and three programs that were over 30%. Please note that there were number of programs in Ohio that did not reduce recidivism at any level of risk, but this is more a question of program integrity than the risk principle.

The best illustration of the risk principle can be seen by looking at the programs that had the most effect for high-risk offenders. If we look at Program MM and Program LL, we can see that these two programs reduce recidivism for high risk offenders over 30%, yet when we go back and look at their effect for low risk offenders, we see that Program MM actually increased recidivism for this group by 7% and Program LL by 29%. Thus, the same programs that were able to reduce recidivism for higher risk offenders, actually increased it for low risk offenders.


1.37 2010 Study of Community Correctional Programs in Ohio

Notes:

This 2010 study was a follow-up to the original 2002 study of Community Correctional Programs in Ohio, which examined the effectiveness of Ohio Halfway Houses and Community Based Correctional Facilities at reducing recidivism. This study determined the type of offenders that benefited most from programming and examined the individual level characteristics of participants of halfway houses and community based correctional facilities programs. This study examined over 20,000 offenders, 44 halfway houses and 20 community based correctional facilities.


1.38 Treatment Effects for Low Risk

Notes:

This slide indicates treatment effects for low risk residents. When low risk cases were examined, this study indicates that far more programs demonstrate a negative treatment effect on low risk offenders, with effects ranging from a 50 percentage point improvement to a 50 percentage point increase in the program’s recidivism rate.


1.39 Treatment Effects for High Risk

Notes:

When the high risk cases are examined, it is apparent that the majority of programs are effective at reducing recidivism (just 9 programs increased recidivism for high risk offenders).

1.40 Provide Most Intensive Interventions to Higher Risk Offenders


Notes:

It is apparent that for the best results in reducing recidivism by risk, it is important to provide the most intensive interventions to higher risk offenders.

1.41 The question is:

Notes:

The questions is:

What does more “intensive” treatment mean in practice?

Most studies show that the longer someone is in treatment the greater the effects.

However, effects tend to diminish if treatment goes too long.

The next few slides will discuss the importance of determining how much dosage is appropriate for offenders.


1.42 Results from a 2010 Study of 689 offenders

Notes:

A 2010 study of 689 offenders was completed by Latessa, Sperber and Makarios. This study attempted to identify the number of hours of treatment that are necessary to reduce recidivism in a sample of offenders placed in a residential community corrections facility. The sample for this study includes 689 adult male offenders successfully discharged from a Community-Based Correctional Facility in Ohio.

In this study, they examined a 100-bed secure residential facility for adult male offenders that utilized the cognitive-behavioral modality of treatment. The average offender age was 33, 60% single/never married, 43% less than high school education, 80% moderate risk or higher and 88% have probability of substance abuse per SASSI (Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory)


1.43 2010 Dosage Study of 689 Offenders

Notes:

This graph provides a visual representation of the impact of dosage on recidivism by risk level. It presents the percentage of offenders who recidivated by treatment dosage levels at different levels of risk. The results provide support for providing higher levels of dosage to high-risk offenders, with substantial reductions in recidivism for high-risk offenders receiving 200 or more hours of treatment. Of particular importance is that the largest reduction in recidivism from dosage occurs for the group of high-risk offenders who received the highest levels of dosage.


1.44 Findings

Notes:

These research findings suggests that dosage levels over 200 hours provide substantially important reductions in recidivism in high-risk offenders and that over 100 hours of dosage is effective at reducing recidivism for moderate- and low-risk cases. The findings of this study show the recidivism rate for high-risk offenders moves from 81% to 57% when treatment hours are increased from 100 to 200 or more hours. These findings provide support for providing high-risk cases with over 200 hours of treatment dosage. The results are not as strong for moderate risk offenders.


1.45 Results from 2014 Study

Notes:

From a 2014 study research used a sample of over 900 male adults who completed a treatment program at a community-based correctional facility to examine how offender risk level moderates the relationship between treatment dosage and recidivism. This study used a larger sample and more narrowly defined dosage categories by looking at low/moderate, moderate and high risk offenders and treatment dosage was measured by using categories that identified the number of hours of group treatment each offender received by 50-hour increments.


1.46 2014 Dosage Study

Notes:

This chart illustrates the impact of different levels of dosage on the likelihood of recidivism by risk level. The bar chart suggests that some increases in dosage result in reductions in recidivism for all risk levels, but that the dosage categories with the lowest rates of incarceration vary by risk level.


1.47 Findings from Second Study

Notes:

Findings from the second study conclude that:

Relationship between dosage is not linear and moderated by risk Largest changes in recidivism for low-moderate and moderate risk cases

occurred when the dosage moved from less than 100 to 100-149, and then back up when dosage increased (over 150 hours for low-moderate, and over 300 hours for moderate).

For higher risk offenders largest reductions was when dosage went from 150-199 to 200-249. Reductions continued but at a lower rate.


1.48 Provide Most Intensive Interventions to Higher Risk Offenders

Notes:

Again, higher risk offenders require much higher dosage of treatment. When calculating the amount of dosage hours per risk levels:

A general rule of thumb, 100-150 hours for moderate risk offenders200 + hours for high risk. Only providing 100 hours for high risk offenders will have little effect. It is important to note that this does not include work/school and other activities that are not directly addressing criminogenic risk factors.


1.49 Conclusions

Notes:

The conclusion of this study supports the previous research including the risk principle and demonstrates the benefit of providing increased dosage in correctional treatments that target offender populations. It indicates that we cannot have a “one size” fits all programs. Programs need to be tailored to the needs of the offenders within the program.


1.50 Increased Recidivism with Treatment?

Notes:

The previous studies demonstrated that intensive intervention for low risk offenders can increase recidivism rates. The question is why do programs that have such a positive effect on high-risk offenders have such as negative effect on those low-risk ones?


1.51 Intensive Treatment for Low Risk Offenders will Often Increase

Failure Rates

Notes:

Intensive Treatment for Low Risk Offenders will often increase failure rates.

First, placing low-risk and high-risk offenders together is never a good practice. For example, if you had a son or daughter that got into some trouble, would you want them placed in a group with high-risk kids? Of course not. Low risk offenders will learn anti-social behavior from higher risk. Placing low-risk offenders in the more intense correctional interventions are more than likely exposing them to higher risk offenders-and the learning that is transmitted is often antisocial.

Second, when we take lower risk offenders, who are by definition fairly prosocial, and place them in a highly structured, restrictive program, we actually disrupt the factors that make them low-risk. Increased reporting or surveillance leads to more violations or revocations. For example, when placed in a correctional treatment program for six months, how many would lose their job? How many would have family disruption? How would this disrupt relationships with neighbors upon release? In other words, this would likely increase risk, not reduce it. The risk principle is the “who” to target. Placing high risk and low risk offenders together is never a good strategy. We should be targeting high risk offenders and moderate risk offenders.


1.52 The Need Principle

Notes:

The second principle is known as the need principle and speaks to the issue of “what” to target. The need principle states that interventions and programs should target criminogenic risk factors, or those areas highly correlated with criminal behavior. Criminogenic risk factors include those items we have already discussed, such as antisocial attitudes, antisocial peer associations, antisocial personality characteristics (low-self control, impulsivity), educational limitations, and unemployment.

Non-criminogenic risk factors, such as lack of creative abilities, physical conditioning, medical needs, anxiety, and low self-esteem, are not highly correlated with criminal conduct and should not be the targets for programs.


1.53 Multiple Risk Factors

Notes:

Offenders are not high risk for recidivism because they have one risk or need factor, but rather are high risk because they have multiple risk and need factors. Programs that target only one such need may not produce the desired effects. For example, while unemployment is correlated with criminal conduct for many probationers and parolees, by itself it is not that strong of a risk factor. After all, if most of us were unemployed we would not start selling drugs or robbing people; we would simply start looking for another job.


1.54 The Need Principle:

Notes:

This figure shows the results from a recent meta-analysis that compares effect sizes from programs that target criminogenic versus non-criminogenic needs. As can be seen by this graph, programs that target at least four to six more criminogenic needs produced a 31% reduction in recidivism, while those programs that targeted one to three more non-criminogenic needs essentially showed no effect on recidivism. This data illustrates the importance of assessing and subsequently targeting dynamic risk factors that are highly correlated with criminal conduct. We also found this in the Ohio study, but I will talk about that data in a bit.


1.55 Criminal Thinking and Mental Illness

Notes:

Another study of 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 mental illness scored similar or higher than non-mentally disordered offenders.

On Criminal Sentiments Scale-Revised, 85% of men and 72% of women with mental illness had antisocial attitudes, values and beliefs - which was higher than the incarcerated sample without mental illness.


1.56 Conclusion

Notes:

In conclusion, results indicated the clinical presentation of mentally disordered offenders is similar to that of psychiatric patients and criminals.

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 The results indicate that the need for mental health professionals is to treat co-

occurring issues of mental illness and criminality in correctional mental health treatment programs.


1.57 General Responsivity

Notes:

The responsivity principle tells us how to target the criminogenic needs of higher risk offenders.

There are two parts to this principle: general and specific. General responsivity tells us to provide treatment that offenders in general will respond well to, like cognitive behavioral strategies. Specific responsivity tell us to match the styles and mode of service to key offender characteristics and learning styles.

As the general responsivity states, the more effective approaches to changing offender behavior are behavioral interventions. These approaches form what is referred to as the treatment principle. The most common behavioral approaches used in corrections include: Structured social learning programs where new skills are taught, and behavior

and attitudes are reinforced. Cognitive behavioral programs that target attitudes, values, peers, substance

use, anger, etc. Family based interventions that train family on appropriate behavioral

techniques. Social learning which 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. For example, although most of us don’t like to admit it, when we have children we often become our parents, saying and doing things we never thought we would when we were kids. We learned this behavior from our parents and


mimic what we have observed. This is social learning.

And finally, Cognitive behavioral strategies which often include cognitive self-control, anger management, social perspective taking, moral reasoning, social problem solving, and attitudinal change. Cognitive behavioral programs that include multiple components appear to have the greatest potential for reducing antisocial or violent behavior. However effects may be short term unless other social system factors are addressed, such as family and peers.

The four principles of cognitive intervention are: Thinking affects behavior; Antisocial, distorted, unproductive irrational thinking causes antisocial and

unproductive behavior; Thinking can be influenced and changed; and We can change how we feel and behave by changing what we think Cognitive curricula have several advantages. First they can be used in almost any setting such as in prisons, by probation officers, in schools, day reporting centers, and in residential and outpatient programs. Second, they provide structure for a program by providing the facilitators with a set format, which includes specific targets for change as well as activities that allow the offender to rehearse and practice new skills. Third, almost any staff member can be trained to deliver the program. Finally, research has demonstrated that if implemented properly, these approaches can reduce recidivism.

1.58 Specific Responsivity


Notes:

Research on specific responsivity has not been extensive. The relatively little research conducted has focused on differential treatment effects as a function of the personal-biological-social characteristics of the client.

Examples are offender motivation for treatment, gender, ethnicity, and race.

The responsivity principle is all about delivering human services that target criminogenic needs in a way that is understandable and resonates with higher-risk clients.

1.59 Specific Responsivity

Notes:

The goal is to optimize the client’s learning of new thoughts and behaviors. Adherence to the responsivity principle requires the following two general considerations.

1. Know the client’s attributes that limit and/or facilitate the client’s learning style. Some client attributes may be a mix of factors (e.g., a client from a racial

minority has biological factors operating and perhaps social factors in the case of minorities living in poverty).

2. Create an optimal environment conducive to learning. Learning in this context is very broad; it is the acquisition of knowledge and skills


To create such an environment, the first requirement is for the service provider to understand what client characteristics can affect his or her ability to learn

Next, the service provider creates the environment through his or her skills, language, and intervention activities that encourages client engagement in the learning activities and promotes efficient and effective client learning of what is being taught.

The heart of the responsivity principle is in the environment created by those providing services. It is not just any environment; it is a “learning” environment, a place where change is promoted and initiated. The risk and need principle provide specific direction to achieve a goal of reducing reoffending. For example provide services to higher risk clients and target needs empirically related to reoffending.

One approach used to address specific responsivity in clients is motivational interviewing. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a set of concrete and specific skills, techniques, and strategies designed to create an environment that addresses treatment failure (i.e., failure to attend, engage, complete treatment) by increasing motivation.

In the past, motivation was believe to be behaviorally based. Today however, we consider increasing motivation as strengthening a client’s commitment to change, where commitment and motivation are dynamic and internal.

What is liked about Motivational Interviewing is that it is prescriptive about what to do to create an optimal learning environment, specifying the helper’s behaviors (e.g., skills, techniques, and activities employed during sessions) and informing them of what to do and how to do it while interacting with a client. The primary target - engagement rather than the more distal outcome of problem behavior change (such as substance use or re-offending) - is specific to the outcomes of responsivity.


1.60 Most Effective Behavioral Models in Corrections

Notes:

The most effective behavioral models in corrections include: Structured social learning where programs teach new skills and behavior and

attitudes are modeled and reinforced. Cognitive behavioral programs that attempt to change the attitudes, values and

beliefs that offenders have about things like who they associate with, substance use, anger, employment, and other criminogenic areas.


1.61 Social Learning

Notes:

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.

For example, while incarcerated, offenders learn various skills through observing behavior of those they encounter. They may observe an offender manipulate a staff member to get something they want like a piece of candy. This offender observes this behavior and sees the end result has positive outcome, thus this offender mimics this behavior and receives the same positive outcome through observed learned behavior. Now the offender has learned the skill of manipulation. Social learning can assist one in becoming a better criminal.

For situations like this, we can easily see how important it is for staff to be modeling and practicing appropriate behavior. For example, If staff members are serving as agents of change and having offenders practice certain skills in a class room setting, offenders will watch staff in their day to day interactions with others to see if they are using these skills. If they see staff members using these skills, they will mimic that same behavior. Conversely, if staff are not displaying appropriate behavior, it can undermine the effectiveness of the programs.


1.62 The Four Principles of

Notes:

The four principles of cognitive intervention are as follows:1. Thinking affects behavior2. Antisocial, distorted, unproductive irrational thinking can lead to antisocial

and unproductive behavior3. Thinking can be influenced4. We can change how we feel and behave by changing what we think

It is important for offenders to be aware of how these four principles can apply to their daily life and their decision making. How does their thinking lead to specific behavior? How does antisocial thinking lead to unproductive behavior or negative consequences? What internal or external factors could influence their thinking? How can we take all of this and change the way we feel and behave by changing negative thoughts into prosocial thinking?


1.63 Results from Meta Analysis:

Notes:

This slide indicates the difference between non-behavioral versus behavioral treatment. In this study, Andrews divided treatment in two basic types: nonbehavioral and behavior. The effect of non-behavioral treatment is .07 as compared to behavioral programming at .29. This shows that behavioral programs on average reduce recidivism by approximately 30%!

A non-behavioral treatment approach would be educating offenders about negative behavior, teach them that this negative behavior is harmful and what negative consequences could result of this behavior.

When taking a behavioral treatment approach, one would actually teach the offenders new ways to behave by challenging their thinking, modeling new behaviors and having them practice and rehearse new ways to act and behave in risky situations.


1.64 Reasons that CBT is Popular in Corrections

Notes:

Cognitive behavioral programs have several advantages.

Cognitive programs can be used in almost any setting. They can be used in prisons, by probation officers, in schools, day reporting centers, and in residential and outpatient programs.

Almost any staff member can be trained to deliver cognitive behavioral treatment. This provides structure for a program by providing the facilitators with a set format to follow, including specific targets for change and activities that allow the offender to practice new skills that can be utilized in high risk situations.

They are relatively cheap to deliver because there is a wide range of curricula available.

Research has demonstrated that if implemented properly, these approaches can reduce recidivism.


1.65 CBT curricula

Notes:

Today there are a number of the cognitive curriculums that have been developed to target or change antisocial attitudes and behavior. Listed are examples of the more common curricula that are in use with offenders.

The National Institute of Corrections' Thinking for a Change is an integrated, cognitive behavior change program for offenders that includes cognitive restructuring, social skills development, and development of problem solving skills.

Aggression Replacement Training® targets aggressive behavior by focusing on cognitions, emotional states and new behaviors. While originally developed for adolescents, the curriculum has been applied with adult offenders as well.

Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions for Sexual Offending is a structured curriculum intended for individuals who are moderate to high need in the area of sexual offending and related behaviors.

Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions for Substance Abuse is designed for individuals that are moderate to high need in the area of substance abuse and is well suited for criminal justice populations.

Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions for Offenders Seeking Employment is designed for court-involved individuals who are moderate to high need in the area of employment.

Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions - A Comprehensive Curriculum is designed to provide a thorough intervention that broadly targets all criminogenic needs.

Strategies for Self Improvement and Change, also called Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment, targets substance abuse and includes motivation to change, cognitive restructuring and social skills.


Moving On is designed specifically for female offenders and utilizes a CBT approach with gender responsive strategies.

Reasoning and Rehabilitation and Moral ReconationTherapy

1.66 Recent Meta-Analysis of Cognitive Behavioral Treatment for

Offenders

Notes:

In 2005, Landenberger & Lipsey completed a meta-analysis of cognitive behavioral treatment for offenders. After reviewing 58 studies, they found that on average CBT reduced recidivism by 25%. They also found that when certain conditions were met, the effects resulted in a 50% reduction in recidivism.


1.67 Significant Findings

Notes:

The effects were stronger if:

Dosage was increased (2 or more sessions per week). Staff were trained and monitored in the delivery of material. This increases the

fidelity and means staff are delivering the services just the way they were trained to deliver content.

Programs were able to address responsivity factors which increased completion rates.

Programs targeted higher risk offenders, and provided additional services based off of the needs of the offender.

In other words, the effects were strongest when the principles of risk, need, and responsivity were met.


1.68 The Cognitive Behavioral Approach

Notes:

A cognitive behavioral approach based on social learning theory includes three components. 1) Cognitive restructuring, which is “what” we think or the content of our

thoughts. Here we change criminogenic thoughts such as “blaming the victim,” “minimizing the crime,” etc.

2) Cognitive skill development, which involves “how” we think, or the process of our thoughts. Here we try to improve skills like problem solving, self control, decision making, etc.

3) Behavioral strategies, which includes reinforcement and modeling of prosocial behavior.

Effective cognitive behavioral programs include all three components.


1.69 Section 4

Notes:

Section 4: What Doesn’t Work with Offenders?

Correctional policy makers and practitioners have not been quick to consult the research and literature on correctional effectiveness prior to planning and implementing new programs. Too frequently correctional programming is the result of “correctional quackery” --- to use a term coined by Paul Gendreau. That is policy makers and practitioners follow their own hunches or whatever direction the political winds are blowing---rather than the evidence.


1.70 Ineffective Approaches

Notes:

Given this situation, it is not surprising that there are a number of approaches that are not very effective at reducing recidivism with offenders. Approaches that are not effective include:Strategies that are designed to instill punishment rather than to reduce risk factors, including:

Programs that cannot maintain fidelity Programs that focus on non-criminogenic factors Classes focused on fear and other emotional appeals Shaming offenders Drug education programs Non-directive, client centered approaches Talking cures Self-Help programs Vague unstructured rehabilitation programs “Punishing smarter” Let’s begin by reviewing some of the findings from the “punishing smarter” programs.


1.71 Punishing Smarter Strategies—

Notes:

Many of today’s sanctions that are referred to as intermediate sanctions have actually been used in community corrections for many years. In the 1980s however, the dramatic increase in the prison population led to a renewed interest in the development and expansion of programs that fall between regular probation and prison or jail. Some of these programs were designed to provide more services and treatment to offenders, while others were part of the “get tough” movement that swept the country during this period. The two major issues facing intermediate sanctions are offender diversion and public safety. These two issues are often conflicting; for if your goal is to reduce the prison population, than you are often required to divert higher risk offenders to community supervision. Diverting high-risk offenders to the community, however, increases the risk to public safety.

Intensive SupervisionWhile the vast majority of offenders who are on probation receive what is usually referred to as regular supervision, it is rare to find a probation department, especially one that supervises felons that does not include an intensive supervision unit or component. Let’s start by looking at intensive supervision and its history.

The first experiments in intensive supervision were conducted in the 1950s and early 1960s in California. These studies were designed to examine whether or not there was a relationship between caseload size and probation effectiveness. The theory was similar to the one found in education, in which there have been


attempts to find the magic number or ideal class-size. These early experiments believed that by reducing caseload size we could increase contacts, improve treatment and service delivery, and thus reduce recidivism. Unfortunately, the research did not support this contention. While caseloads were reduced and more contacts and services were provided, there were no significant differences in outcome between those who received intensive supervision and those who received regular supervision.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a new form of intensive supervision was the developed. This new generation also incorporated smaller caseloads and more contacts, however, instead of more services and treatment the emphasis was on surveillance and control, with the goal of reducing the prison population by diverting higher risk offenders. The most widely emulated version was found in the State of Georgia, which had caseloads as small as 10 assigned to two probation officers, whose primary role was to increase surveillance and control. Frequent contact, curfews, late night checks, frequent drug testing, and other strategies designed to increase supervision were used. Early studies lauded this attempt at prison diversion, however as research grew we learned that increasing surveillance and control often lead to higher rates of failure, particularly with regard to technical violations and revocations.

With the advance of drug testing and electronic monitoring, our surveillance and control techniques became even more rigorous, and as one would expect, lead to even higher violation rates. There have been numerous studies of intensive supervision over the years. In one of the largest studies conducted of intensive supervision, Petersilia and the Rand Corporation examined 14 sites across the country. What made this study so valuable is that offenders were randomly placed into intensive supervision or regular supervision. Findings from this study confirmed that more surveillance and control lead to higher failure rates. This study is considered the most comprehensive ever done on intensive supervision.

Electronic MonitoringElectronic monitoring is big business in the United States. Some local jurisdictions routinely use this alternative to aid with jail crowding. Despite its popularity, however, there are several important considerations surrounding its use. First, who is appropriate for electronic monitoring? Should it be used for serious offenders, or for those who do not pose a serious threat to the community? What about sex offenders? How about violent offenders? Would your answer change for domestic violence offenders?

Deciding who is appropriate for electronic monitoring is not easy, and here is the problem. If we are going to reduce jail crowding, then we need to focus on people who would be in jail. If this is true, then why not just give them probation and be done with it. The other problem centers on the effectiveness of electronic monitoring. Why would we expect electronic monitoring to have an


effect on someone’s behavior in the long run? After all, what risk factors is it targeting? This is one of the problems with electronic monitoring as a correctional intervention-it serves as a risk management tool (as does jail), but as a risk reduction strategy there is little to it besides a short period of incapacitation.

The third issue is that electronic monitoring cannot replace effective correctional treatment programs. It is essential that offender risk factors be targeted through interventions and treatment. If not, there is little empirical evidence that recidivism rates will drop, or that offender behavior will change.

This being said, it is important to note that intensive supervision and electronic monitoring can be considered be tools when coupled with effective treatment interventions.

1.72 Punishing Smarter Strategies—

Notes:

Scared Straight ProgramsOne of the more popular sanctions over the years has been the use of “scared straight” approaches designed to frighten the offender into changing his or her behavior. Although the concept has been around a long time, it became popularized when Peter Falk hosted a television show demonstrating a program operated by the New Jersey Department of Corrections, using inmates from Rahway State Prison. During the show, lifers from the prison yelled and


screamed at young delinquents, and told them all the bad things that would happen to them if they kept on the path to criminal behavior. Through the power of TV, many came to believe that this could be an effective way to steer youthful offenders from a life of crime. While an inexpensive option, research has not favored the “scared straight” approach. The problem with scared straight programs is that most offenders receive reinforcement for delinquency rather than shame.

1.73 Effects of Punishing Smarter

Notes:

While many of the so-called “punishing smarter” interventions we have examined have multiple objectives, one of the critical outcome measures we must always consider is their effect on recidivism. Looking at one study can be a mistake since there are so many factors that can affect the results. So instead, let’s look at a summary of results. This figure shows the average effect sizes from multiple studies. As you can see, only fines show a reduction in recidivism, and a slight one at that. All of the other interventions show either no effect (drug testing), or increases, with juvenile boot camps leading the pack. Of course as we have already discussed, electronic monitoring and intensive supervision can be tools, that when used in conjunction with treatment, can lead to reductions in recidivism. However, when used alone these interventions or sanctions produce negative results.


1.74 Recent Review from the National Institute of Justice

Notes:

Let’s now take a look some of the so-called therapeutic approaches that are not effective. First, take a minute to think of three speeches you have heard that have changed your life. Now think of three people who have changed your life. The point is, most of us don’t remember what we hear; in fact we only retain about 20 percent of what is told to us. On the other hand, we can all think of the people we modeled after and who had a significant influence on our lives. This little exercise helps demonstrate how much more effective social learning is than “talking” cures. The problem is that many correctional programs still think they can “talk” offenders into changing.

Finally, this slide shows the results from a National Institute of Justice study. Although the methodology used by the authors was not a meta-analysis, the findings are the same that others have found using that technique. Correctional boot camps using traditional military basic training have been proven ineffective. Likewise, drug prevention classes focused on fear and other emotional appeals, including self-esteem and the D.A.R.E. program has been found ineffective with juvenile delinquents. The very popular, yet ineffective intermediate sanctions like “Scared Straight” programs where juvenile offenders visit adult prisons do not work to reduce recidivism. The same is true of shock probation, shock parole, & split sentences that add time to probation or parole sentences. Other approaches like home detention with electronic monitoring and intensive supervision are largely ineffective as well. Those rehabilitation programs that use vague, unstructured counseling techniques do not reduce offenders risk to reoffend and finally,


residential programs for juvenile offenders using challenging experiences in rural settings do not work either.

1.75 Review of Drug Treatment Effectiveness - Lightfoot

Notes:

Since substance abuse is so prevalent with offenders, let’s look at some of the reviews of research. The next table is from a review of the literature conducted by Lightfoot. As you see, the most effective approaches were social learning, cognitive behavioral, and behavioral.


1.76 Review of Drug Treatment Effectiveness – Lightfoot (Cont)

Notes:

On the other hand, the approaches in which there was no clear evidence of effectiveness included many of the techniques that are commonly still used with offenders.

Popular approaches include: Lecture, self-help, psychotherapy, and confrontational techniques.


1.77 Review of Drug Treatment

Notes:

A review by Taxman found the same pattern: self-help groups and other psychoanalytical approaches proving to be ineffective

1.78 Substance Abuse Treatment


Notes:

Some of you might say, “I see AA and 12-Step programs on these lists--haven’t these programs saved millions of people from alcohol abuse?” Yes they have, but remember, we are often dealing with offenders who happened to abuse substances, not prosocial people who drink too much.” Look at how AA and the 12-Step program developed. The founders, Bill W. a stockbroker, and Dr. Bob S, a surgeon, were both highly successful individuals who, over the course of many years, lost all they had achieved because of their addiction to alcohol. Their addiction developed over an extended period of time. It makes sense that for these two men, the concepts central to the 12-Steps would be extremely powerful:

They felt they were powerless over their use of alcohol Their lives had become unmanageable A power greater than themselves was needed for them to gain back order in

their lives It also makes sense that these two individuals would respond to a spiritual path to recovery. After all, AA evolved from the Oxford Group, which was an Episcopal self-help movement in the 1920s and 1930s. Both Bill W. and Dr. Bob S. had been involved in the Oxford Group prior to getting sober.

Now think about a criminal population-what have they achieved in their lives? Most of them have achieved very little. Sadly, for many offenders, drugs is their achievement; drugs are what made them successful. Drugs gave them money, status, power, and sex. What have they lost because of their drug or alcohol use? For many their actual drug use has not progressed to the point that it has cost them much other than their freedom. Consequently, they believe that it is the government and not their use of drugs that is their problem. If they can get out from under community control or prison they believe their problems will be solved. What attitudes, values and beliefs do they bring to the table that prevent them from taking advantage of the fellowship of AA?

Consider most offenders: they act out of short-term, hedonistic, and self-centered concerns. Many lack the ability to form lasting empathic relationships with others, and the relationships they form are often based on short-term self-gratification. They often do not understand the needs of regulating their behavior to accommodate the needs of others. The Fellowship of AA tells them they are powerless over their substance use, their lives are unmanageable, and they need to submit their will to a higher power. Therefore, the typical response by the offenders is then:

I’m not powerless Drugs and crime are my power.


My life is not unmanageable. My life is fine except I am under community control, or incarcerated. As soon as I am free my life will be quite manageable.

I will not submit my will to anyone. I’ve got it all figured out. You’re the confused one.

Remember, successful upper middle class men who lost everything to their addiction developed the disease model. Many offenders simply do not connect to this model.

So, what does the research tell us? First, drug abuse and addiction is a chronic relapsing condition. As we have learned, applying short term, education-based treatment services will not effectively reduce it. Second, traditional models used by substance abuse programs, such as drug/alcohol education and 12-Step models, have not been found to be as effective as cognitive-behavioral models. Third, most offenders have several risk factors that need to be addressed through interventions, substance abuse may be one, but it is rarely the only one contributing to their behavior. Finally, criminality is an independent factor that independently affects a treatment outcome. So, what should be done to increase effectiveness of substance abuse treatment for offenders?

1.79 Effective Substance Abuse Program Components

Notes:

First, we need to require substance abuse programs to include behavioral treatment based on cognitive techniques:


Examining the thinking patterns that support drug use and replacing them with thoughts that support abstinence. Engaging the offender in specific skill building activities to reduce risk: teaching and practicing new skills to replace those of drug usage. Focusing on the present - targeting and changing current factors that influence behavior. Working on lifestyle change - changing those aspects of their lives that reinforce drug use--techniques to reinforce and model prosocial behavior.

Second, the intensity of treatment should vary according to risk and should be sufficiently intensive to be effective. For example, research indicates that any program lasting less than 90 days will likely be ineffective. One rule of thumb is that treatment should be at least 100 hours of direct services over a 3-4 month period; however, intensive treatment programs lasting over one year (excluding aftercare) might begin to see diminishing results.

Third, we need to assess offenders on all major risk factors, not just substance abuse.

Fourth, we need to make sure that all risk factors are being addressed through appropriate types and levels of treatment.

Finally, including aftercare services increases treatment effectiveness.


1.80 Program Integrity

Notes:

Program integrity seeks to identify the characteristics of programs that are above and beyond type of treatment provided, that are related to a program’s effectiveness in reducing recidivism.

The term “program integrity” refers to the degree to which a program meets the principles of effective intervention. Specific tools will measure how the program intervention and services are delivered to the offenders. Integrity has to do with whether the human service activities are delivered as planned and designed, and indeed whether the delivery of services achieved intermediate objectives. Over the past several decades, research in corrections has focused on identifying particular types of programming that are effective in reducing recidivism. Research in corrections has begun to focus on the relationship between correctional program integrity (staff, implementation, treatment activities, etc.) and effectiveness. A 2004 study by Chris Lowenkamp used data on 38 community residential programs in the State of Ohio to determine how the characteristics of those programs relate to effectiveness and how these characteristics can be measured. Findings indicate a strong relationship between correctional program integrity and treatment effectiveness. An example of a program evaluation tool is the Evidence Based Correctional Program Checklist, or the CPC. The CPC contains 77 items across five


domains. These areas are program leadership and development, staff characteristics, quality assurance, offender assessment, and treatment characteristics. Each item is scored based on the presence or absence of what it is the item is measuring.

1.81 What are some Indicators of Program Integrity?

Notes:

Some indicators of program integrity include:

1. A hands on Program Director who selects, trains, and supervises staff, and delivers some direct services to clients.

2. A Specific model or theory of changing offender behavior that is specific in regard to the desired practice. Integrity is enhanced when a highly specific and concrete version of a rational and empirically sound theory is employed through consultation with research on what works with offender populations.

3. Selecting workers who possess general interpersonal influence skills such as enthusiasm, caring, interest, and understanding; training these workers in the delivery of the specific program and working with offenders; and providing clinical supervision from a person who has been trained in the delivery of the specific program being delivered.

4. Offenders should be assessed using validated risk and needs


assessments, which in turn should be used to inform treatment services.

5. Offenders should receive a sufficient number of hours of evidence based interventions related to their risk and need level

6. Tracking offender progress in treatment and providing them feedback is also an important program component

7. Quality assurance through the monitoring of a structure service process and/or intermediate gain by an involved evaluator who participates in the design, delivery and supervision of the program.

1.82 Section 5

Notes:

Section 5: Summary of What Works in Programming

We will end this module by examining some additional findings from the Ohio halfway house/CBCF study. If you recall from previous slides, the study completed in Ohio was the largest ever conducted of halfway houses and community-based correctional facilities. The primary goal of this study was to determine how effective these programs were in reducing recidivism. As part of this study, UC was asked to determine the recidivism rates for over 50 programs that served offenders in Ohio.


For the entire experimental sample, the average treatment effect was a 4 percent reduction in recidivism (halfway houses did slightly better than CBCFs); however, when we examined the programs individually we saw a significant variation in the rates. The lowest was a 43 percent reduction in recidivism, while the highest was a 41 percent increase in recidivism. This is quite a difference.

1.83 Some Lessons Learned from the Research

Notes:

The critical question is “why were some of the programs so effective in reducing recidivism, while other programs actually had higher failure rates than the comparison group?”

To answer this question, some lessons learned from the research indicate:

Who you put in a program is important - pay attention to risk Assessing and targeting higher risk offenders versus targeting low risk

offenders. What you target is important - pay attention to criminogenic needs

Focusing interventions and programs targeting criminogenic risk factors, or those areas highly correlated with criminal behavior are effective

How you target an offender for change is important - use behavioral approaches Eliminating barriers or non-criminogenic factors for offenders that slow

down the treatment process.


1.84 Section 6

Notes:

Section 6: Review of Learning Objectives

Over the years, correctional researchers have learned a lot about what works in corrections. Because we have presented a good deal of material in this module, let’s review our initial objectives and the material we presented for each.


1.85 Review of Learning Objectives

Notes:

Objective 1:Review the latest research methods and research findings on effective correctional intervention:

When summarizing bodies of research, meta-analysis is the favored approach. The meta-analysis will utilize statistical data from different studies and this assists in identifying patterns among study results or other relationships that may come to light in the context of multiple studies

The meta-analysis will provide a more definitive conclusion than literature reviews. Meta analyses demonstrates that behavioral programs are most effective at reducing recidivism.

Behavioral programs that focus on the present and are action-oriented rather than talk-oriented are more effective. Remember, you can’t change the offender’s past behavior, but you can change future behavior.

Punishment-oriented programs are largely ineffective at reducing recidivism. Just punishing an offender for wrong-doing is not effective. The introduction of social skills and alternative cognitive techniques are what will assist in changing a criminal’s future offending behavior.



Notes:

Objective 2:The factors correlated with criminal conduct are known as risk factors. Risk specifies that supervision and treatment levels should match the offender’s level of risk.

Major risk factors for criminal recidivism include: Antisocial attitudes/beliefs Criminal associates Negative temperament/antisocial personality History of antisocial behaviors Family factors Low education, vocational skills, or financial achievement

Risk factors are not gender specific. Men and women share similar risk factors.



Notes:

Objective 3:Learn the importance of the risk, need, and responsivity principleThe risk principle tells us “who” to target. The risk principle stipulates that offenders should be matched to supervision level and treatment based on their level of risk. In practice, this means that low-risk offenders should receive less supervision and services, and higher-risk offenders should receive more intensive supervision and services.

The need principle tells us “what” to target. Interventions and programs should target criminogenic, or crime producing needs in high risk offenders

The responsivity principle tells us “how” to target. Behavioral interventions are most effective at reducing recidivism. Empirical research has indicated that programs and agencies that adhere to this process-that is assigning offenders to supervision and services based on risk and need-are more effective in reducing recidivism than those programs and agencies that practice the “one-size-fits-all” approach



Notes:

Objective 4:Learn the components of cognitive behavioral interventions

Cognitive behavioral approaches emphasize learning to recognize and change antisocial thought patterns and behaviors, improve how feelings are handled, and break the cycle of behaviors indicative of a risky lifestyle. This perspective helps offenders see the connection between how they think, what they tell themselves, and the feelings and actions that follow.

The cognitive behavioral approach includes cognitive restructuring, cognitive skill development and other behavioral strategies.

Cognitive-behavioral curriculums should be used in treatment programs to ensure curriculums ensure that all treatment goals are met during group sessions. This also ensures that facilitators or counselors are delivering content in a way that it is designed to be delivered.

Multi-Systemic Therapy is an effective approach for juvenile offenders. Multi-systemic therapy provides treatment for juvenile offenders by applying a combination of empirically-based treatments to address multiple areas that have been shown to be factors in juvenile behaviors.



Notes:

Objective 5:Develop a clear understanding of what does not work with offenders

“Punishing smarter” programs have not demonstrated effectiveness at reducing recidivism. These include intensive supervision, electronic monitoring, shock incarceration/boot camps and scared straight programs. These programs do not target those risk/need factors that are associated with offender recidivism. Some of these programs may be used as tools when coupled with effective treatment programs. But using these programs alone with not be effective.



Notes:

Objective 6:Learn the characteristics of effective correctional programsPrograms should use the cognitive-behavioral model. The cognitive behavioral model’s fundamental principle stresses that an individual’s cognitions play a significant and primary role in the development and maintenance of emotional and behavioral responses to life situations.

Substance abuse treatment should be behavioral and target a range of criminogenic needs. Simply teaching an offender why substance abuse is wrong is not enough. An offender must be taught those skills to appropriately deal with high risk situations that surround potential use of substances.

Programs should have an appropriate termination rate. Based on the 2002 study of Community Correctional Programs, a program’s termination rate should fall between 65 and 85 percent. Programs with rates lower than this are terminating participants at too high a rate, and programs with rates above this tend to indiscriminately successfully complete participants.

Criminogenic risk factors should be the targets in programming. While in various cognitive-behavioral groups, role-playing should be used to practice new skills. Offenders need the opportunity to practice these situations in increasingly difficult situations for them to be most effective.

Treatment should be varied according to the offenders’ risk level. Once we have


assessed the risk, needs and responsivity factors of an offender, we know the who and what to target, along with some of the barriers that exist that keep offenders from benefiting from treatment

Programs do not generally show significant effects until they are in operation for at least three years. Therefore, it can be difficult to determine if programs that have been in operation for less than three years are effective in reducing recidivism. For this reason, process evaluations are typically used to determine if the programs are "on track" to reduce recidivism.

When all of these characteristics are combined into one program, treatment effects are maximized.

1.91 Thank you for your participation.

Notes:

This concludes our module on What Works in Correctional Intervention. Thank you so much for your interest and participation. We hope that you found this information helpful to your work.


Untitled Layer 1 (Slide Layer)


Date post:	19-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ngonguyet
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Articulate Word Output - NY DCJS€¦ · Web viewThird, they include techniques to reinforce...

Documents