RNR Simulation ToolPhillip Barbour Master Trainer for Center for Health and Justice at TASC (CHJ)
1
Risk, Needs, Responsivity (RNR) and Recidivism: An Update on Theory
Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence (ACE!)George Mason Universitywww.gmuace.org/tools
BJA: 2009-DG-BX-K026; BJA: 2010-DG-BX-K077; SAMHSA: 202171; Public Welfare Foundation
2
Faye S. Taxman, Ph.DUniversity ProfessorCenter for Advancing Correctional
ExcellenceCriminology, Law and Society George Mason University10519 Braddock Road Suite 1900Fairfax, VA 22032
James M. Byrne, Ph.D.ProfessorUniversity of Massachusetts, LowellGriffith University
April Pattavina, Ph.D.Discrete Event ModelAssociate ProfessorUniversity of Massachusetts, Lowell
Avinash Singh Bhati, Ph.D.Simulation ModelMaxarth, LLC
Michael S. Caudy, Ph.D.Stephanie A. Maass, M.A.Erin L. Crites, M.A.Lauren Duhaime, B.A.Amy Murphy, MPPJoseph Durso, M.A.Gina Rosch Special Acknowledgements:• Bureau of Justice Assistance
▫ BJA: 2009-DG-BX-K026• Center for Substance Abuse
Treatment▫ SAMHSA: 202171
• Public Welfare Foundation• Special Thanks to:
▫ Ed Banks, Ph.D.▫ Ken Robertson
3
What affects recidivism?The good, the bad, and the ugly!
4
Understand RiskUnderstand What Affects
Recidivism
5
67%
Reducing Recidivism:The RNR Framework Target individual risk Target needs that are amendable to
change Offer quality programs Engage offenders in change process
What is Risk?
6
•Risk is the likelihood that an offender will engage in future criminal behavior (recidivate).
•Risk does NOT refer to dangerousness or likelihood of violence
•Static Risk Factors have a demonstrated correlation with criminal behavior▫Historical – based on criminal history▫Cannot be decreased by intervention
CJ Risk Matters…(3 year, all offenses)
Ainsworth, Crites, Caudy, & Taxman, 2011
7
Risk is static factors: history of arrests, age of onset,history of incarceration, history of escapes, etc.
Age & Rearrests
Langan & Levin, 2002
8
Gender Matters
Ainsworth, et al 2011
9
Evidence-Based Practices Lead to Better Outcomes
• Education (Psycho-Social)• Non-Directive Counseling • Directive Counseling
• Motivational Interviewing• Moral Reasoning• Emotional Skills• 12 Step with Curriculum
• Cognitive Processing• Cognitive Behavioral
(Social Skills, Behavioral Management, etc.)
• Therapeutic Communities (TC)
• Contingency Management/Token Economies
• Intensive Supervision• Boot Camp• Case Management• Incarceration
• TASC• DTAP (Diversion to TX, 12 Month Residential) • Treatment with Sanctions (e.g. Break
the Cycle, Seamless System, etc.)
• Drug Courts• RNR Supervision• In-Prison TC with
Aftercare
10
Better Outcomes via Tx Matching
11
Caudy, et al (2011). Using Data to Examine Outcomes: A review of Kansas Department of Corrections. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.
1212
http://www.gmuace.org/tools/
The RNR Simulation Tool•Provide decision support tools for the field
that enhance existing practices▫Individual level▫Program feedback▫System building capability
•Program Tool focuses on:▫Classifying programs to target specific needs▫Rating key program features▫Linking to meta-analyses/systematic reviews
13
Compiled National Database (20,000+) or Develop Your Own Database
Reflect Expected Reductions in Recidivism (from Meta-Analysis)
Base Recidivism Rate
• Risk & Need Information• Destabilizers—performance inhibitors• Programs• Expected outcomes
Model to Improve Outcomes: Big Picture• Current recidivism hovers around 67%
▫3 year re-arrest rate
• How can we make a dent in this at the system and individual level?
15
Offender Individual Risk & Need Factors
Organizational Culture
Program Quality Implementation
Correctional Programming
Individual Outcomes (Reduced Recidivism)
Focus of EBP Research
Focus of RNR & RNR Simulation Tool
16
RNR via Andrews & BontaAndrews & Bonta• Antisocial personality
patterns• History of antisocial
behavior• Antisocial peers• Antisocial attitudes• Family/marital factors• Employment/educational
deficits• Lack of prosocial leisure
activities• Substance Abuse
Updated research Responsivity, Recidivism, &
Clinical Relevance Substance dependence vs.
abuse Spectrum of needs can
override risk (3+) Change is a function of
problem severity History of antisocial behavior
is risk (cannot be changed) Recidivism reduction is
function of targeting specific needs within programs
17
Major Criminogenic Needs•Severe Substance Use Disorders
▫A pattern of harmful use of any substance for mood-altering purposes
▫Includes 6 or more of the following: Increased tolerance, withdrawal, increased
time spent using, difficulty quitting or cutting back, or continued use despite negative consequences
▫Not the same as substance abuse▫Drug of choice matters
18
Major Criminogenic Needs•Criminal Thinking/Lifestyle
▫A pattern of thinking that rationalizes and supports criminal behavior
▫Involvement with criminal lifestyle
▫Should be assessed using a validated instrument
19
What is Responsivity?• Treatment to address criminal behavior should
be cognitive and/or behavioral based programming that has been shown to effectively reduce recidivism.
• Deliver controls and treatment in a manner that is consistent with individuals’ learning styles▫Considers age, gender, culture, intelligence,
motivation, etc.▫Translate Risk & Need into Program
Placement/Case Decisions▫Needs trump risk when there is 3+ needs▫Destabilizers require more social controls
20
StabilizersSupportive Family Stable Employment
Education > HS Diploma
Stable HousingLocation in non-Hot
Spots
DestabilizersAlcohol AbuseDrug Abuse
Family DysfunctionPoor Mental Health Status
Employment-Related Issues
Literacy Related ProblemsHousing Instability
Location in Hot Spots
CJ RISKCriminogenic Needs
Substance Tolerance for “Hard Drugs”3+ Criminal Lifestyle—attitudes, family, peers,
personality, substance abuse
21
Gender & Age
What Information do I Need?•Static Risk
▫From a validated risk assessment tool▫Based on criminal history
▫Demographics▫Age and gender
▫Criminogenic Needs▫Substance Use▫Criminal thinking/lifestyle
•Stabilizers and Destabilizers▫Clinically-relevant factors
22
The RNR Program Tool for Adults
Define target behaviors that drive program classification
Understand program group classification system
23
24
Program Groups• Six program groups based on specific target behaviors
25
Risk Type of Need Type of Stabilizers
PROGRAM GROUP
MECHANISM OF ACTION RESEARCH EVIDENCE
Group A Severe Substance Use/Dependence
Treatments to reduce use of heroin, cocaine, amphetamines, and methamphetamine
Holloway, Bennett, & Farrington, 2006; Prendergast, Huang, & Hser, 2008; Prendergast, Podus, Chang & Urada, 2002; Lipton, Pearson, Cleland & Yee, 2008; Mitchell, Wilson & MacKenzie, 2007
Group B Criminal Thinking
Cognitive restructuring to change maladaptive thinking and behavior patterns
Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Lipsey, Landenberger & Wilson, 2007; Wilson, Bouffard & MacKenzie, 2005; Little, 2005; Tong & Farrington, 2006 & 2008
Group C Self-Improvement and Management
Developing social and problem solving skills to address MH, SA, and self-control.
Botvin & Wills, 1984; Botvin, Griffin, & Nichols, 2006; Martin, Dorken, Wamboldt & Wootten, 2011
Group D Social and Interpersonal Skills
Structured counseling and modeling of behavior to reduce interpersonal conflict and develop more positive interactions.
Botvin & Wills, 1984; Beckmeyer, 2006; Wilson, Gallagher & MacKenzie, 2000; Visher, Winterfield & Coggeshall, 2005
Group E Life Skills
Stabilize education, housing, employment, and financial concerns.
Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Beckmeyer, 2006
Program Groups for SUD Treatment• Offenders with SUDs have unique Tx needs
▫Program Group A: Addicts▫Program Group C: Abusers with Lifestyle Factors
• Operationalized essential features▫Program content, dosage, implementation fidelity
• Example: Group A – most intensive▫ Individual profile: all CJ risk levels; dependence on hard drugs;
multiple criminogenic needs and destabilizers
▫ Program profile: cognitive restructuring techniques; adequate dosage to address high SUD need; clinical staff; evidence-based curricula; medication-assisted treatment
27
Essential Features of Effective Programs
28
Principles of Effective Interventions•Rehabilitative efforts have a greater
impact on recidivism
•There is no magic program▫There is no one program or program type
identified that will consistently have a large impact on recidivism
•We do know something about common features of effective correctional practice▫What really works?
McGuire, 2002; Lipsey & Cullen, 2007
29
Program Quality Matters• Most programs score < 50% (unsatisfactory)• Program quality (Implementation, Risk-Need
Assessment, Orientation) related to Recidivism
Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Smith, 2006; see also Nesovic, 2003
30
Program Tool Factors• Target Population• Program Goals• Program Theory• Client Level Factors
▫Spectrum of Needs/Severity of Program Needs▫Developmental Factors (e.g., age, gender,
cognitive, physical)• Program Structure• Program Dosage (a lot unknown, clinical literature)• Implementation Issues
▫Staffing▫Fidelity Monitoring, Training▫Quality Assurance
31
Substance Abuse Treatment Program
32
• Key Items: Use of a validated risk assessment and focus on appropriate risk levels
• Justification: ▫Use of a validated risk assessment is
associated with more effective programs (Smith, Gendreau, Swartz, 2008)
▫Provide more intensive services to higher risk individuals (Lowenkamp, Latessa, and Holsinger, 2006;
Andrews & Dowden, 2006)
33
• Key Items: Program focuses on a primary target; uses appropriate content based on the target
• Justification: ▫Focus on criminogenic needs
(Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge, 1990)
▫Focus on stabilizers and destabilizers (Ward & Stewart, 2003)
▫Treatment is theoretically linked to changes in the target (Cordray & Pion, 2006)
34
• Key Items: Program content with better evidence, use of rewards and sanctions, and addresses specific responsivity factors; ▫ Focus is on treatment matching
• Justification:▫ Programs more effective if consistent with an
individual’s learning style Andrews, Zinger, et al., 1990a; Smith et al., 2009; Taxman,
& Marlowe, Douglas, 2006
▫ Treatment matching improves outcomes Mee-Lee, Shulman, Fishman, Gastfriend, & Griffith, 2001;
Thornton, Gottheil, Weinstein & Kerachsky, 1998; Gastfriend & McLellan, 1997; Barbor, 2008
35
• Key Items: completion criteria, appropriate administration based on target, appropriate staff credentials based on target, staff communication, program evaluation, use of a treatment manual, coaching, technical assistance, quality assurance protocols
• Justification: ▫ Implementation fidelity related to effectiveness
Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Andrews & Dowden, 2005; McGrew, Bond, Dietzen & Salyers, 1994; Stanard, 1999; Simons, Padesky, Montemarano, Lewis, Murakami, Lamb et al., 2010; Taxman & Bouffard, 2000; Fletcher, et al., 2009; Taxman & Belenko, 2012
36
• Key Items: appropriate clinical hours, sufficient duration based on target, sufficient intensity based on target, sufficient frequency based on target, phases, and aftercare
• Justification:
▫ Dosage positively related to effect size (Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005)
▫ High risk approximately 300 hours of CBT (Bourgon & Armstrong)
▫ Higher risk saw recidivism reduction with more dosage in drug treatment (Taxman, Byrne, & Thanner, 2002; Lowenkamp & Latessa,
2005)
37
•Key Items: Social controls in programs are also useful to enhance the impact of the content and dosage of programs
•Justification:
▫Increasing social controls for higher risk individuals can improve outcomes (Drake, Aos, & Miller, 2009; Padgett, Bales,
and Blomberg, 2006; Pattavina, Tusinski-Miofsky, & Byrne, 2009)
38
Example Scores39
Domain Max Score MAT Drug Tx Center
Re-entry Program
Drug Court Outpatient Tx
PROGRAM GROUP A A B A B
Risk 15 0 0 15 15 5
Need 15 10 10 15 15 15
Responsivity 15 13 10 15 13 13
Implementation 25 17 18 21 21 21
Dosage 20 7 9 9 18 10
Restrictiveness 10 10 6 4 8 5
Total Score 100 60 53 79 90 69
New! Specialty Court Output
40
41
42
Building a Responsive System
Identify Core Principles of Responsivity Identify Key Stakeholders
43
Core Principles of Responsivity• Individual
▫Match programming and controls to risk and need▫Involve the offender in the assessment of risk-need
information & selection of options▫Focus on motivation to change ▫Provide feedback reports to offenders on progress
• System▫Focus on correctional culture to increase receptiveness to
treatment ▫Measure client outcomes to gauge performance and share
with partner agencies ▫Increase communication and build systems of care
44
What does a “Responsive Jurisdiction” look like?•Screening and assessment
▫Identify risk and primary criminogenic needs▫Link assessment info to specific case plans
•Treatment matching•High-quality, evidence-based programming
▫Sound implementation▫Enough dosage to make change
•Capacity to address population needs▫Alignment between needs and services▫Collaboration between CJ and Tx
45
Identifying Key Stakeholders•Judges
•Prosecutors
•Defense Attorneys
•Probation/Parole Officers
•Program Directors/Administrators and Treatment Staff
46
Jurisdiction Capacity Limitations•CJ agencies often lack capacity for
responsivity.
•Lack of information within correctional agencies about the specific nature and availability of community-based programs.
•Lack of quality decision-support tools to help them assess both individual-level and system capacity issues
47
48
Group A Group C Group D Group E Group FGroup B
Thank you!!www.gmuace.org/tools
This project received funding from Bureau of Justice Assistance, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, and Public Welfare Foundation. Views expressed here are ours and not the
positions or policies of the funders.
50