Risk-Need-Responsivity Simulation Model Presented at the American Society of Criminology’s Annual Meeting, November 17, 2010 Faye S. Taxman, Ph.D. Stephanie A. Ainsworth, M.A. Jillian K. Baird Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence (ACE!) George Mason University Terri L. Hines 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

Summary of Key Risk-Related Assumptions Risk Assumption # 1: High risk offenders comprise approximately 20% of the state prison population; 80% of these offenders are predicted to fail (re-arrest) within 3 years of release from prison. Risk Assumption # 2: Moderate risk offenders comprise approximately 50% of the state prison population; 60% of these offenders are predicted to fail (re-arrest) within 3 years of release. Risk Assumption # 3: Low risk offenders comprise approximately 30% of the state prison population; 40% of these offenders are predicted to fail (re-arrest) within 3 years of release. Risk Assumption # 4: High rate re-offending: a small proportion of all releases (12%) account for a significant proportion (34.4%) of all crimes committed (35 or more total arrests, pre and post release) by the release cohort (Langan & Levin, 2002). About half of all high risk offenders are high rate offenders; high rate offenders are rarely classified as medium or low risk.

Summary of Key Need-Related Assumptions Need Assumption #1: 40% of High risk offenders will have both a significant substance abuse problem and a criminal thinking problem that needs to be treated; in addition, these offenders will require stabilization in one or more additional need areas (work, family, marriage, and education). Need Assumption #2: 50% of High risk offenders will have criminal thinking problems that need treatment; these offenders will have 3+ other criminogenic needs. Need Assumption #3: 40% of Moderate risk offenders will have a significant substance abuse problem and a criminal thinking problem that needs to be treated; in addition, these offenders will require stabilization in one or more additional need areas (work, family, marriage, and education). Need Assumption #4: 50% of Moderate risk offenders will be substance abuse dependent and have 3+ criminogenic needs.

Summary of Key Need-Related Assumptions Need Assumption #5: 30% of Moderate risk offenders will have 3+ criminogenic needs that do not include substance abuse. Need Assumption #6: 20% of Low risk offenders will have a significant substance abuse problem and a criminal thinking problem that needs to be treated; in addition, these offenders will require stabilization in one or more additional need areas (work, family, marriage, and education). Need Assumption #7: 90% of High rate offenders will have a significant criminal thinking problem that needs to be treated; in addition, the majority of these offenders will require substance abuse treatment and stabilization in one or more additional need areas (work, family, marriage, and education).

Summary of Key Responsivity Assumptions Responsivity Assumption #1: High risk offenders who receive treatment in at least two of designated high need areas will fail at half the rate of high risk offenders who do not receive treatment. Responsivity Assumption #2: Moderate risk offenders who receive treatment in designated high need areas will fail at half the rate of moderate risk offenders who do not receive treatment. Responsivity Assumption #3: Low risk offenders who receive treatment in designated high need areas will fail at half the rate of low risk offenders who do not receive treatment. Responsivity Assumption # 4: High rate offenders who receive treatment in at least two of designated high need areas will fail at half the rate of high rate offenders who do not receive treatment. Reducing failure in this subgroup of releases will have a larger overall crime reduction effect than reducing failure among lower rate offenders.

Program Placement Categories by Offender Risk Level Risk LevelPrimary Criminogenic Need # Other Criminogenic Needs Programming Level Correction: High Non-Criminogenic Needs* High Substance Abuse Dependent 3+Category A High Substance Abuse Dependent <3Category BCategory A Moderate Substance Abuse Dependent 3+Category BCategory A Moderate Substance Abuse Dependent <3Category CCategory B Low Substance Abuse Dependent 3+Category B Low Substance Abuse Dependent <3Category CCategory B High Habitual Criminal Lifestyle (include drug dealers/gangs) 3+Category A High Habitual Criminal Lifestyle (include drug dealers/gangs) <3Category B Moderate Habitual Criminal Lifestyle (include drug dealers/gangs) 3+Category B Moderate Habitual Criminal Lifestyle (include drug dealers/gangs) <3Category CCategory B Low Habitual Criminal Lifestyle (include drug dealers/gangs) 3+Category B Low Habitual Criminal Lifestyle (include drug dealers/gangs) <3Category C High Criminal Offending 3+Category B High Criminal Offending <3Category C Moderate Criminal Offending 3+Category DCategory B Moderate Criminal Offending <3Category E Low Criminal Offending 3+Category DCategory E Low Criminal Offending <3Category FCategory E

Category A: Intensive daily restrictions on behavior with 3+ hours a day in setting; deals with High Risk and Substance Abuse Dependent or Criminal Behaviors with 3+ Criminogenic Needs Category B: Moderate daily restrictions on behavior with services multiple times a week; deals with High Risk (<3 criminogenic needs) and Moderate Risk with 3+ Criminogenic Needs Category C: Low daily restrictions on behavior with multiple times a month services; deals with Moderate Risk with <3 criminogenic needs Category D: Weekly restrictions on behavior; for Moderate Risk and Low Risk with 3+ Criminogenic Needs or Substance Use Dependent Category E: Weekly restrictions on behavior for Low Risk with <3 Criminogenic Needs Category F: Punishment only

Intensive Daily Restrictions Punishment Moderate Daily Restrictions Low Daily Restrictions Low Medium High Risk Liberty Restrictions by Risk Level

Example of Synthetic Data Profile Attributes ProfileIDAgeRaceGenderOffenseRisk Primary Criminogenic Need Other Criminogenic Need

RNR Program Categorization Tool Measures programs according to: Restrictive Setting, Implementation, Content, and Caliber. Weights of items will be determined through an systematic reviews of effect sizes. Jurisdictions will rank programs upon these four measures and match offenders appropriately. Trial test of RNR tool on programs within a jurisdiction.

RESTRICTIVE MEASURES Restrictive Setting  Prison5  Jail5  Work release/halfway house with day privileges5  Weekend requirements3  Office Setting0  Other0 Restrictive Community (Court, Probation, Day Program, etc.) (choose the highest level applicable)  GPS or electronic monitoring5  Curfew/area or restraining order restrictions4  Day programming—3+ hours/day3  Daily contact (phone, , person, community service )2  Weekly contact1  At least monthly1  Other, assess for amount of contact Drug Testing (choose one)  Daily3  Twice a week3  Once a week2  Monthly1  Random1  None0 RESTRICTIVE SCORE: ___________ QUESTIONS: Other Restrictive Measures? Suggestions on Weights?

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES Programming—Frequency of Community Service, Treatment, Intervention  Daily3  Twice a week3  Once a week2  Monthly1  Unspecified 1 € Not Applicable0 Programming--- Duration of Community Service, Treatment, Intervention  More than 52 weeks  26 to 52 weeks  18 to 25 weeks  13 to 17 weeks  4 to 12 weeks € Under 4 weeks Programming--- Hours per Week of Community Service, Treatment, Intervention  More than 20 hours/week  15 to 19 hours/ week  10 to 14 hours/week  5 to 9 hours/ week  1 to 4 hours/week  Less than 1 hour IMPLEMENTATION SCORE: ___________ QUESTIONS: Other Implementation Measures? Suggestions on Weights?

CONTENT MEASURES Treatment Orientation (choose one)  CBT3  Therapeutic community 3  Drug treatment or problem solving court 3  MST/MFT/ MDFT 3  Employment 3  Domestic violence 3  Sex offender 3  Other, assess for level  No clear orientation 0 Primary Treatment Programming (choose one)  Substance abuse 1  Substance abuse and co-occurring disorder1  Alcohol or drug education/orientation/ psychosocial Ed 1  Anger management 1  Antisocial values/orientation 1  Domestic violence 1  Generic 0 Components of Tx Programs (check all that apply)  Anger management 1  Antisocial peers/social networks 1  Antisocial values and attitudes 1  Family related issues 1  Domestic violence 1  Employment services 1  Alcohol or drug education/orientation /psychosocial Ed 1  Substance abuse self-support efforts (NA/AA)1 Rewards (choose the highest level applicable)  Contingency management 3  Credit for completion of program requirements 2  Generic 1  None 0 Punishment (choose the highest level applicable)  Structured Sanctions 2  Generic 1  Unspecified 1  None 0 QUESTIONS: Other Content Measures? Suggestions on Weights?

PROGRAM CALIBER MEASURES Staff  Special certifications (MSW, Addictions, etc.) 5  Treatment supervision 4  Relevant experience 3  Correctional staff without certification 1  Other 0 Evaluation of the Program  External 3  Internal 2  Use performance measures 2  Use client satisfaction scales 0 € None 0 Clear Completion Criteria  Yes 1 € No 0 Set Program Eligibility (choose the highest level applicable)  Use risk and need assessment to determine eligibility 3  Identify set criteria based on offense 2  Have treatment staff assess for eligibility without risk/ need assessment 2 € None of the above 0 Exclusionary Criteria  Exclusionary criteria always followed 3  Exclusionary criteria sometimes followed 1  No exclusionary criteria in program 0 Use Treatment Manual  Use research based manual 3  Use own manual 2  Have treatment staff develop own sessions. 0  None… Proceed to Quality Assurance Treatment Sessions 0 Fidelity to Treatment Program  Treatment manual is strictly followed for all treatment sessions 3 € Treatment manual is a guide but staff deviate from manual for some treatment sessions 1 € Treatment manual is a suggestion that staff often deviate from in treatment Session 0 Have Quality Assurance of Tx Sessions  Audio or videotape sessions 3  Have quality assurance sessions 2  Have staff review problem cases 2 € None 0 Answers to this tool verified by at least one other individual (colleague or supervisor)? € Yes 2 € No 0 CALIBER SCORE: __________ QUESTIONS: Other Program Caliber Measures? Should Points be Additive or Subtractive?

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 Jillian K. Baird Graduate Research Assistant Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence (ACE!) Criminology, Law and Society George Mason University Braddock Road Suite 1900 Fairfax, VA Terri L. Hines Graduate Research Assistant Criminology, Law and Society George Mason University 4400 University Drive, 4F4 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 20531