If We’re Serious About Recidivism, How Can We Reduce the Gap in Service Provision? Faye S. Taxman, Ph.D. Stephanie A. Ainsworth, M.A. Erin L. Crites, M.A. Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence (ACE!) George Mason University Avinash Singh Bhati, Ph.D. Maxarth, LLC James M. Byrne, Ph.D. April Pattavina, Ph.D. Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology University of Massachusetts, Lowell Edward Banks, Ph.D. Knowledge Management Coordinator Bureau of Justice Assistance July 26, 2011

Acknowledgements Bureau of Justice Assistance Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Public Welfare Foundation 2

Client is arrested for a DWI with a BAC of.15 Classified as low risk based on agency’s validated risk assessment instrument Workshop instructor states that individual should be treated as a high risk for supervision purposes based on the high BAC. 3

The REAL Problem Lots of ways to do correctional programming, but no set principles Risk and Needs are often confused There are no clear guidelines about assigning offenders to controls or treatment The guidelines can be recidivism based, if we had the data The RNR is complicated and hard to follow 4

Learning Objectives Rate Your Population ▫Identify the factors associated with offending Effective Interventions ▫Identify how to appropriately respond to those factors to reduce recidivism and improve offender outcomes Rate Your Programs ▫Identify appropriate program options to reduce correctional costs without jeopardizing public safety Town Hall Discussion 5

Rate Your Population: Factors Associated with Offending Empirically Based ▫Static Risk ▫Criminogenic Need>>>Dynamic Risks>>>>Linked to Criminal Behavior  Drug Dependency  Criminal lifestyle Clinically Relevant ▫Destabilizers  Drug Abuse or Alcohol Dependence  Mental Health History ▫Stabilizers  No Criminal Networks (friends & family)  Stable Housing  Full-Time Employment  Family Support  Education 6

Simplify the Criteria: Risk: Identify Offenders with an Extensive and Early Onset Criminal History (Static Risk Level) Need #1: Identify Offenders who are Drug Dependent or who Present Multiple Criminal Lifestyle Factors (Criminogenic Need Level) Need #2: Identify Offenders with Potential Destabilizing and Stabilizing Factors 7

Static Risk Step One: Know the Risk Level

Risk Principle: High- to Moderate-Risk offenders should be prioritized for placement in treatment and control programs Offenders vary by level of probability of recidivism – Static Risk Risk is static or unidirectional ▫Risk stays the same or increases; it can not be reduced Risk factors are gathered from criminal history information ▫Age at first arrest, number of prior arrests, number of prior probation/parole events, number of probation/parole revocations, attempted/successful escapes from custody 9

Risk Level (Classification 1) 53.6% 66.0% 77.2% %52.2%23.7%

Discussion What is the biggest struggle when considering static risk? ▫For you, for your agency? Where does risk fall short? 11

Criminogenic Needs Reducing the Complexity

Need Principle: Criminogenic Needs should be the primary focus of treatment, control and programming Criminogenic Needs are dynamic factors & link with offending behavior Reducing criminogenic needs reduces recidivism Target the key ones, and consider severity 13

14 Contributes to Criminal Behavior Psychosocial functioning Antisocial Peers Substance Abuse Family CJ Involvement Location (Crime Area) Low Self Control Antisocial Values Criminal Personality Substance Dependence Mental Health Employment Education Housing Family Dysfunction Criminogenic Needs *Items in boxes are included in our data measures

Easily Identifiable Criminogenic Needs Drug Dependence ▫Early age of first use of drugs, regular use of drugs associated with offending behavior (criminogenic drugs - crack, cocaine, heroin, other opiates, methamphetamine, other amphetamines), use of criminogenic drugs at time of offense 3+ Criminal Lifestyle Indicators ▫Criminal Networks  Family or friends engaged in criminal activity ▫Family Support  Lack of visits, calls, or mail from children while incarcerated; receiving financial support from family members prior to arrest ▫Employment  Not employed full time prior to arrest ▫Education  Less than a high school diploma ▫Housing  Unstable (homeless) prior to arrest ▫Offenders who present 3+ have higher need and should be targeted for more intensive services. 15

What do we know about Criminogenic Needs ~9% of the prison and jail sample present with drug dependence 24.7% have 3 or more criminal lifestyle needs 16

Risk Level by Dynamic Need (Classification 2) 17

Rearrest Rates by Risk Level by Dynamic Need (Classification 2) 18

BUT… there are other variables which are clinically relevant Drug Abuse/Alcohol Dependence ▫Older age of first use, non-regular use of criminogenic drugs, use of drugs at time of arrest, (but not criminogenic drugs) ▫Age of first drink, drinking at time of arrest, arrested because of alcohol use, disruptions to work or relationships due to alcohol use. Mental Health History ▫Ever diagnosed with a MH disorder, ever taken medication for mental condition, ever admitted to or stayed overnight in a mental health hospital, ever received counseling from a trained professional, ever received other mental health treatment services 19

Presence of Destabilizer 71.3% of the prison and jail sample report drug abuse or alcohol dependence ▫69% report both drug abuse and alcohol dependence 6.3% report a history of mental health concerns 20

Risk and Destabilizers for Drug Dependent Individuals (Classification 3) 21

Recidivism Rate by Risk and Destabilizers for Drug Dependent Individuals (Classification 3) 22

Risk and Destabilizers for Individuals with 3+ Criminal Lifestyle Indicators (Classification 3) 23

Rearrest Rates by Risk and Destabilizers for Individuals with 3+ Criminal Lifestyle Indicators (Classification 3) 24

Rearrest Rates by Risk by Need by Destabilizer (Classification 3) 25

Reflection Does this match what you see in practice? What other factors are important? 26

Stabilizers Family Support Educated Full-time employment Lack of Criminal Networks Stable Housing **Considered in good shape with 4+ present 43.6% of the combined prison and jail sample report having 4+ stabilizing indicators 27

Risk by Stabilizer for (classification 4) 28

Rearrest Rates by Risk by Stabilizer for (classification 4) 29

So What is Responsivity? The Program Categories

Responsivity Principle: matching of clients to programs and supervision based on their identified risks and needs. Balance between supervision to respond to risk and treatment programming to address needs. Program setting, dosage, implementation, philosophy, and quality important influences on outcomes. 31

Program Characteristics Restriction- restrictions (including the setting of the program) are viewed as tools used by criminal justice agents to assist in stabilizing, monitoring, and supporting offenders in their efforts to change their behavior Dosage- combination of frequency, length of sessions, duration of the intervention, and length of aftercare Content- use of empirically supported treatment philosophies and evidence based practices. Fidelity- principles of effective interventions including integrity and quality (Lowencamp, Latessa, & Smith, 2009) Lowenkamp, C. T., Latesa, E. J. & Smith, P. (2008). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology and Public Policy, 5,

Low Moderate High Liberty Restrictions by Risk Level Risk Level 33

Identify promising correctional programs supported by the literature Meta-analytic techniques are the strongest evidence since they summarize the literature ACE! “collaboratory” to identify and code systematic reviews to identify known effect sizes To date Aos, Miller, and Drake (2006) have identified multiple promising programs including: CBT-based programs, adult drug courts, and Therapeutic Communities followed by aftercare. Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs and Crime Rates. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. 34

Expected Reductions in Recidivism Programs: ▫CBT and CBT based programs (6.8%-31.2%) a ▫Therapeutic Communities (5.3% no aftercare to 6.9% with aftercare) a ▫Specialized Courts (10.7% drug courts) a ▫Sex Offender Treatment ▫Intensive Manualized Drug Treatment ▫Half Back Programs ▫Outpatient Drug Treatment Supervision Tools ▫Electronic Monitoring ▫Motivational Interviewing ▫Drug Testing ▫Intensive Supervision (17.9%-21.9% when paired with treatment) a Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs and Crime Rates. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. 35

Program Categories Category A: Intensive daily restrictions on behavior with 3+ hours a day in a setting; deals with High Risk and Substance Abuse Dependent or 3+ Criminogenic Needs. Category B: Moderate daily restrictions on behavior with services multiple times a week; deals with High Risk with <3 Criminogenic Needs Category C: Low daily restrictions on behavior with multiple times a month services; deals with Moderate Risk with Drug Dependence or 3+ Criminogenic Needs Category D: Weekly restrictions on behavior; for Moderate Risk with Drug Use or Alcohol Dependence and Low Risk with 3+ Criminogenic Needs or Drug Dependence Category E: Weekly restrictions on behavior for Low Risk with Drug Use or Alcohol Dependence Category F: Punishment only for Low Risk with <3 Criminogenic Needs 36

Program Category A Includes individuals classified as high risk with drug dependence or 3+ criminal lifestyle factors. Approximately 4.7% of the sample Programs include: ▫CBT-3 or more hours per day, 5 days per week, for at least 90 days, plus aftercare. ▫Therapeutic community- 3 or more hours per day, 5 or more days per week, for at least 9 months, in a highly structured environment, plus community based reentry services and tapered aftercare. ▫Specialized court- 3 hours per day, five days a week, at least 12 months. ▫Intensive manualized drug treatment-at least 3 hours per day, five days a week, at least 9 months. ▫Sex offender treatment-at least 3 hours daily, combining intensive individual and group counseling as appropriate. ▫Half-back programs-at least 3 hours per day. Supervision tools: used to manage compliance and address public safety. 37

Program Category B Includes individuals classified as high risk with <3 criminogenic needs Approximately 9.3% of the sample Programs include: ▫CBT based programming-one or more hours at least 2-4 times weekly, lasting about 90 days, followed by aftercare. ▫Specialized court-lasting at least 12 months. ▫Intensive manualized drug treatment-2 or more hours session, 3 or more days per week, at least 9 months. ▫Sex offender treatment-at least 2 hours per session, at least 3 days a week, combining intensive individual and group counseling as appropriate. ▫Work release—behavior restricted when not engaged in employment-related activities outside of the facility. ▫Educational, vocational, or employment-2-4 days a week for at least 2 hours each session. Supervision tools used to manage compliance and address public safety (lower levels of restriction from A). 38

Program Category C Includes individuals classified as moderate risk with drug dependence or 3+ criminogenic needs Approximately 18.8% of the sample Programs include: ▫CBT based programming-1+hours per week, lasting about 90 days. ▫Educational, vocational, or employment programs that include activities once per week for 1+hours each session. ▫Specialized court-1+ hours per session weekly, lasting at least 6 months, could be supported by more frequent group treatment sessions as needed. ▫Manualized drug treatment-1+ hours per session, weekly extends for 6 months and could be supported by more frequent group substance abuse sessions as needed. ▫Sex offender treatment-2+ hours, at least weekly and combining intensive individual and group counseling as appropriate. Supervision tools used to manage compliance and address public safety (lower levels of restriction from B). 39

Program Category D Includes individuals classified as moderate risk with drug use or alcohol dependence and low risk with 3+ criminogenic needs or drug dependence Approximately 23.5% of the sample. Programs include: ▫Outpatient drug treatment-at least 1 hour/week on a weekly basis, which may be supported by attendance at group substance abuse treatment sessions or at self-help groups. ▫Substance abuse group counseling at least weekly. ▫CBT based programming-one hour/week lasting about 90 days. ▫Educational, vocational, or employment programs that include activities once per week for around 1 hour each session. Supervision tools used to manage compliance and address public safety (lower levels of restriction from C). 40

Program Category E Includes individuals classified as moderate risk with no substance use or criminogenic needs (with stabilizers) or low risk with drug use or alcohol dependence. Approximately 37.4% of the sample. Programs include: ▫Substance abuse group counseling 2-3 times per month, as needed. ▫Psycho-educational services. ▫Drug/alcohol abuse/use education. ▫CBT based programming-one hour about 2-3 times per month, and over the course of at about 90 days ▫Educational, vocational, or employment programs that include activities as needed. ▫Referrals for treatment services or community educational/vocational, literacy, ESL or other such programs with no or limited requirments for attendance Supervision tools used to manage compliance and address public safety (lower levels of restriction from D). 41

Program Category F Includes individuals classified as low risk with <3 criminogenic needs. Approximately 6.2% of the sample. Includes fines, community service, restitution, shock incarceration, and other criminal justice sanctions with the sole purpose of being punitive and retributive. Likely to include some form of supervision, but with no additional services to assist the offender in managing criminogenic needs. 42

Percent of Program Category within Static Risk Level 43

Percent Rearrested by Program Category and Static Risk Level-Actual Rates with No Programming 44

Discussion Do the program categories clarify the differences seen in risk levels? Questions? 45

Next Steps Establish expected reductions in recidivism following appropriate program placement. Expanding data to include pre-trial, diversion, and probation samples using SCPS data. Pilot model with data from multiple jurisdictions. Model can be used at the individual or jurisdictional level. 46

Faye S. Taxman, Ph.D. University Professor Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence (ACE!) Criminology, Law and Society George Mason University Braddock Road Suite 1900 Fairfax, VA Stephanie A. Ainsworth, M.A. Graduate Research Assistant Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence (ACE!) Criminology, Law and Society George Mason University Braddock Road Suite 1900 Fairfax, VA Erin L. Crites, M.A. Graduate Research Assistant Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence (ACE!) Criminology, Law and Society George Mason University Braddock Road Suite 1900 Fairfax, VA Avinash Singh Bhati, Ph.D. Maxarth, LLC 509 Cedar Spring St., Gaithersburg, MD James M. Byrne, Ph.D. Professor Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology University of Massachusetts, Lowell 1 University Avenue, Lowell, MA April Pattavina, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology University of Massachusetts, Lowell 1 University Avenue, Lowell, MA Edward Banks, Ph.D. Knowledge Management Coordinator Bureau of Justice Assistance 810 Seventh Street NW., Fourth Floor Washington, DC