1. What Works in Reducing Recidivism: Some Lessons I have Learned over the Years Evaluating Correctional Programs By: Edward Latessa School of Criminal Justice University of Cincinnati

2. Lesson 1 Some things don’t work

3. Evidence Based – What does it mean? There are different forms of evidence: –The lowest form is anecdotal evidence; stories, opinions, testimonials, case studies, etc - but it often makes us feel good –The highest form is empirical evidence – research, data, results from controlled studies, etc. - but sometimes it doesn’t make us feel good

4. Some so called “theories” we have come across “Offenders lack creativity theory” “Offenders need to get back to nature theory” “Offenders need discipline and physical conditioning theory” “Offenders need to change their diet theory” “Treat them as babies & dress them in diapers theory” “We just want them to be happy theory” “Male offenders need to get in touch with their feminine side theory”

12. Caught in the act: Juveniles sentenced to Shakespeare Adjudicated youth offenders rehearsed a scene from Shakespeare’s “Henry V’’ that they will perform tonight in Lenox. (Nancy Palmieri for The Boston Globe) By Louise KennedyLouise Kennedy Globe Staff / May 18, 2010 LENOX — Tonight, 13 actors will take the stage at Shakespeare & Company in “ Henry V. ’’ Nothing so unusual in that — except that these are teenagers, none older than 17, and they have been sentenced to perform this play. The show is the culmination of a five-week intensive program called Shakespeare in the Courts, a nationally recognized initiative now celebrating its 10th year. Berkshire Juvenile Court Judge Judith Locke has sent these adjudicated offenders — found guilty of such adolescent crimes as fighting, drinking, stealing, and destroying property — not to lockup or conventional community service, but to four afternoons a week of acting exercises, rehearsal, and Shakespearean study.

15. DOGSLEDDING AS RESTORATIVE JUSTICE METHOD – London Free Press – 07/03/11 The Hollow Water First Nation, who live 200 km northeast of Winnipeg, have used dogsledding as a restorative justice program, which tries to restore relationships between victims and perpetrators in criminal cases. Exercising wilderness skills was seen as a way of rebuilding the perpetrator’s self-esteem, explained Marcel HARDESTY, restorative justice program director.

16. Lesson 2 If you want to reduce recidivism focus on the offenders most likely to recidivate

18. There are Three Elements to the Risk Principle 1.Target those offenders with higher probability of recidivism 2.Provide most intensive treatment to higher risk offenders 3.Intensive treatment for lower risk offender can increase recidivism

19. Lesson 3 Sometimes we fail because we do not provide enough treatment

20. Provide Most Intensive Interventions to Higher Risk Offenders Higher risk offenders will require much higher dosage of treatment –Rule of thumb: 100 hours for moderate risk –200+ hours for higher risk –100 hours for high risk will have little if any effect –Does not include work/school and other activities that are not directly addressing criminogenic risk factors

21. Results from a 2010 Study (Latessa, Sperber, and Makarios) of 689 offenders: Sample Characteristics 89% White Average age 33 60% single, never married 43% less than high school education 95.5% Felony offenders 80% moderate risk or higher 88% have probability of substance abuse per SASSI

22. lowmoderatehighoverall 0-99 Tx hours395246 100-199 Tx hours26458143 200+ Tx hours435748 2010 Study (Latessa, Sperber and Makarios) Recidivism Rates by Treatment Intensity and Risk Levels Average low=78, Moderate= 155 High =241

23. Lesson 4 Some times we fail because we provide intensive programs to the wrong offenders

24. Intensive Treatment for Low Risk Offenders will often Increase Failure Rates Low risk offenders will learn anti social behavior from higher risk Disrupts prosocial networks

25. 2002 STUDY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS IN OHIO Largest study of community based correctional treatment facilities ever done up to that time Total of 13,221 offenders – 37 Halfway Houses and 15 Community Based Correctional Facilities (CBCFs) were included in the study. Two-year follow-up conducted on all offenders Recidivism measures included new arrests & incarceration in a state penal institution

26. Increased Recidivism Reduced Recidivism

28. New Adjudication by Risk Level: Results from 2005 Ohio Study of over 14,000 Youth

29. 2010 STUDY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS IN OHIO Over 20,000 offenders – 44 Halfway Houses and 20 Community Based Correctional Facilities (CBCFs) were included in the study. Two-year follow-up conducted on all offenders

30. Treatment Effects for Low Risk

31. Treatment Effects for High Risk

32. Average Difference in Recidivism by Risk for Halfway House Offenders Low risk↑ recidivism by 3% Moderate risk↓ recidivism by 6% High risk↓ recidivism by 14%

33. Need Principle By assessing and targeting criminogenic needs for change, agencies can reduce the probability of recidivism Criminogenic Anti social attitudes Anti social friends Substance abuse Lack of empathy Impulsive behavior Non-Criminogenic Anxiety Low self esteem Creative abilities Medical needs Physical conditioning

34. Lesson 5 It is important to understand that even with EBP there will be failures.

35. Example of Targeting Higher Risk Offenders If you have 100 High risk offenders about 60% will fail If you put them in well designed EBP for sufficient duration you may reduce failure rate to 40% If you have 100 low risk offenders about 10% will fail If you put them in same program failure rate will be 20%

36. Targeting Higher Risk Offenders continued: In the end, who had the lower recidivism rate? Mistake we make is comparing high risk to low risk rather than look for treatment effects

37. Lesson 6 Everyone thinks they are an expert in criminal behavior

38. Major Set of Risk/Need Factors 1.Antisocial/procriminal attitudes, values, beliefs & cognitive emotional states 2.Procriminal associates & isolation from anticriminal others 3.Temperamental and anti social personality patterns conducive to criminal activity including:  Weak socialization  Impulsivity  Adventurous  Restless/aggressive  Egocentrism  A taste for risk  Weak problem-solving/self-regulation & coping skills 4. A history of antisocial behavior

39. Major Set of Risk/Need Factors 5.Familial factors that include criminality and a variety of psychological problems in the family of origin including:  Low levels of affection, caring, and cohesiveness  Poor parental supervision and discipline practices  Outright neglect and abuse 6.Low levels of personal, educational, vocational, or financial achievement 7.Low levels of involvement in prosocial leisure activities 8.Substance Abuse

40. Recent study of parole violators in Pennsylvania found a number of criminogenic factors related to failure* *Conducted by Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections

41. Pennsylvania Parole Study Social Network and Living Arrangements 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

42. Pennsylvania Parole Study Employment & Financial Situation Violators were: 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)

43. Pennsylvania Parole Study Alcohol or Drug Use Violators were: More likely to report use of alcohol or drugs while on parole (but no difference in prior assessment of dependency problem) Poor management of stress was a primary contributing factor to relapse

44. Pennsylvania Parole Study Life on Parole Violators were: Had unrealistic expectations about what life would be like outside of prison Had poor problem solving or coping skills –Did not anticipate long term consequences of behavior Failed to utilize resources to help them –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

45. Pennsylvania Parole Violator Study: Successes and failures did not differ in difficulty in finding a place to live after release Successes & failures equally likely to report eventually obtaining a job

46. Lesson 7 Offenders are not High Risk because they have a Risk Factor… they have Multiple Risk Factors

47. Targeting Criminogenic Need: Results from Meta- Analyses Reduction in Recidivism Increase in Recidivism Source: Gendreau, P., French, S.A., and A.Taylor (2002). What Works (What Doesn’t Work) Revised 2002. Invited Submission to the International Community Corrections Association Monograph Series Project

48. Lesson 8 Doing things well makes a difference

50. Program Integrity and Recidivism Several large studies we have done recently have found a strong relationship between program integrity and recidivism Higher the program’s integrity score – greater the reductions in recidivism

51. Program Integrity—Relationship Between Program Integrity Score & Treatment Effects 0-30 31-5960-69 70+ Reduced Recidivism Increased Recidivism

52. Program Integrity—Relationship Between Program Integrity Score And Treatment Effect for Community Supervision Programs Reduced Recidivism Increased Recidivism

53. Impact of Program Factors Predicting Felony Adjudication for Juvenile Programs

54. 2009 Study of Community Corrections Centers and Parolees in Pennsylvania Recidivism rates for offenders in Community Correctional facilities were higher than those under supervision Of the 54 programs, 93% were rated as “needs improvement” or ineffective on the Correctional Program Checklist

55. Findings- Recidivism Rates for Successful Completers vs. Comparison Group

56. Lesson 9 Changing behavior isn’t easy, but we can do it – we just need to go about it the right way

57. Effective Correctional Interventions  Use behavioral approaches: Structured Social learning model with cognitive behavioral treatment  Focus on current risk factors  Action oriented  Use reinforcement

60. In 2007 we developed a program for Youth who had parole revoked and were returned to an institution Based on Social Learning CBT model Targeted moderate to high revoked youth Designed to provide over 200 hours of structured txt. Targets –Shorter length of stay –Reduced incidents –Reduced recidivism

61. DYS Revocation Program Outcome

62. DYS Revocation Program: Institutional Misconduct

63. Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS) Designed to better utilize POs as agents of Change Translate risk, need and responsivity principles into practice Improve relationship between PO and Offender Focus on thought-behavior link and teach core skills in simple but concrete manner

64. 64 Structure of EPICS Meeting Officers are trained to structured sessions with offenders in the following way: 1. Check-In 2. Review 3. Intervention 4. Homework and Behavioral Rehearsal

65. Two year Recidivism Results from Canadian Study Bont, et al, (2010) The Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision: Risk-Need-Responsivity in the Real World. Public Safety Canada.

66. Thank you