Date post: | 16-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | zachary-dustin |
View: | 220 times |
Download: | 2 times |
What does WHAT WORKS
have to do with my work?
Ross FeenanManager, Offender Assessments
CSNSW
What Works – now moving in 2 separate ways
RNR plusGoo
d Live
s Mod
elDesistance
model
What Work
s For
Who &
When
Maximisin
geffect sizesChanging
Organisatio
nal Syste
ms and
Individual work
RISK
WHO TO TREAT
(and how much)
NEED
WHAT TO TREAT
RESPONSIVITY
HOW TO TREAT
Adherence to RNR Principles = Recidivism
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
None One Two Three
Eff
ect
Siz
e (r
)
General Violent Females Young Offenders Sex Offenders
R-N-R Principles Have changed our organisations since 2001
ASSESSMENTS – VISAT, ROR, ORNI-R, LSI-R, LS-CMI, LS-RNR, YLSI, CVTRQ
PROGRAMS – Groupwork, evidence based, accredited and focused on “needs”
CASE MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL WORK?
Snapshot of what Probation
Officers Do Behind Closed
Doors
The Manitoba “Black Box” Study
Bonta et. al. 2008
Manitoba Black Box Study
(Bonta et al., 2004, 2008)
211 audiotapes of client interviews
a) Do offenders’ plans contain criminogenic needs?
b) Does supervision target identified criminogenic needs?
c) Are probation officers using the techniques associated with reduced recidivism (i.e., cognitive-behavioural strategies, problem-solving)?
d) Any differences?
The
“Cen
tral
Eig
ht”
Ris
k F
acto
rs
The
“B
ig F
our”
R
isk
Fac
tors History of antisocial behaviour
Antisocial personality pattern
Antisocial cognition
Antisocial associates
Family and/or marital
School and/or work
Leisure and/or recreation
Substance abuse
The “Big Four” & “Central Eight” Criminogenic Needs
Assessment → Plans
Only 39% of identified needs (using the PRA) had a matching intervention strategy
Need Assessed In Plan
Substance Abuse 37% 79%
Emotional 23% 71%
Employment 41% 10%
Peer Problems 48% Not recorded - Too few Attitude 56%
Adherence to the Need Principle?
Need Area % Discussed When Need Present
Family/Marital 90
Substance Abuse 78
Employment/Academic 57
Peer Problems 21
Attitudes 9
Probation Conditions & Recidivism
Compliance with the probation conditions is a fact of community supervision
But too much emphasis can backfire
Time Recidivism
10 minutes 18.9%
15 minutes or more 42.3%
Rates adjusted for risk level
Targeting Criminogenic Needs:Effecting Recidivism
Discussing criminogenic needs were related to reduced recidivism
More focus on criminogenic needs, lower the recidivism
Length of Discussion Recidivism (n)
Low (0-15 minutes) 59.8% (49)
Medium (20-30 minutes) 47.6% (26)
High (40+ minutes) 33.3% (3)
2009 NSW Replication Study
Joanne Kennedy replicated Black Box study in 2009
Total sample – 1,666 Looked at the relationship between
Assessment (LSI-R), case plan factors, case plan strategies and discussion case notes
Similar patterns were found
Assessment → Plan (NSW)
“CONSIDERABLE NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT” – LSI-R
Factor Strategy
Education/Employment 84% 54%
Finances 31% 13%
Family/Marital 68% 56%
Accommodation 70% 34%
Leisure/Recreation 23% 22%
Companions/Associates 21% 32%
Alcohol/drug problems 94% 93%
Emotional/personal 82% 81%
Attitude/orientation 34% 17%
Discussion of Needs (NSW)
Criminogenic Needs (LSI-R)Number of interviews where Factor was relevant
Number of interviews where factor was discussed
Education/Employment 69% 48%
Finances 32% 22%
Family/Marital 66% 48%
Accommodation 45% 40%
Leisure/Recreation 21% 11%
Companions/Associates 21% 20%
Alcohol/drug problems 83% 69%
Emotional/personal 62% 54%
Attitude/orientation 30% 17%
STICS: (Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision)
Training in the RNR model ofCommunity Supervision
Bonta, Bourgon, Rugge, Scott, Yessine, Gutierrez & Li (Nov 2011)
STICS format
3 Day Training Teach skills to facilitate change in RNR framework
Teach the “how to” with clients
Provide structure
On-Going Clinical Support Monthly STICS Meetings
Refresher Course
Feedback on audiotapes
Effects on Probation Officers
STICS Officers v
Untrained “Control” Officers
Relevant & Irrelevant Discussions?
Is time spent on… Criminogenic needs Focus on procriminal attitudes
Or… Non-criminogenic needs Probation conditions
Addressing what matters most…P
erce
nt
Overall Officer Interview Skills
Structuring Relationship BehaviouralTechniques
Cognitive Techniques Effective CorrectionalSkills
mean z
sco
re
Control STICS
So Evidence says…
STICS changes PO behaviour
Enhances the officers’ RNR practices
More focus on criminogenic needs, especially antisocial attitudes
Less spent on non-criminogenic needs & the conditions of probation
Better relationship, structuring & cognitive-behavioural skills for interpersonal influence
Effects on Clients
Did STICS reduce recidivism?
Are client outcomes different? “Personal” caseload recidivism rates at
1 & 2 Years
PO Effectiveness?Before vs. After STICS
Recidivism before STICS
Note: No Differences: STICS PO higher recidivism prior to training
Recidivism after STICS
Note: 13% DifferenceEven greater reductions in recidivism was achieved for those who continued with
the monthly meetings, feedback and refresher courses (15% )
1 Year Recidivism Differences
Group Pre Post Change
Control 34% 33% ↓ 1%
STICS with some clinical support
33% 24% ↓ 9%
STICS with high clinical Support
41% 15% ↓ 26%
Intensive Training and Support in What Works Works!
Intensive RNR training improves PO skills & Interventions
Intensive RNR training reduces reoffending On-going clinical support very important Cognitive Behavioural skills hardest to learn
Requires time & clinical support
SO HOW DO WE GET HOLD OF IT?
Or do we attempt it ourselves??
Is it worth it?
YES It works. Working with clients this way reduces
recidivism. Adhering to RNR principles has to be organisational,
functional, be supported in policy and in practice.
NO Costly to put all staff through thorough training and
have ongoing STICS type support Only one study so far Some staff are already over “What Works”
STICS Report
More information on STICS:
www.publicsafety.gc.ca
Manager, Offender AssessmentsCorrective Services NSW