1. What Works and What Doesn’t in Reducing Recidivism: Applying the Principles of Effective Intervention in Ohio
Presented by:
Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D.
Center for Criminal Justice Research
School of Criminal Justice
University of Cincinnati

2. Purpose of Criminal Sanctions
Retribution: punishment is justified simply because a person has broken the law
General Deterrence: sanction deters potential offenders by inflicting suffering on actual ones
Specific Deterrence: sanction is applied to stop to offender from reoffending again
Restoration: crime control lies primarily in the community, and victims should be central to the process of restoration
Incapacitation: limits offender’s ability to commit another crime
Rehabilitation: change in behavior of the offender produced by treatment and services. Offender chooses to refrain from new crimes rather than being unable to.

3. Deterrence Theory An Exercise in Social Psychology
Aware of the sanction
Perceive it as unpleasant
Weigh the cost and benefits
Assess the risk
Make a rational choice

4. BUT…Most Street Level Offenders
Impulsive
Short term perspective
Disorganized
Failed in school, jobs, etc.
Distorted thinking
Hang around with others like themselves
Use drugs & alcohol
Not rational actors
In short:
- Deterrence theory collapses

5. Incapacitation
Stronger with some type of offenders (i.e. bank robbers--virtually no effect with drug dealers or users)
High cost for relatively low pay off
Effects are more short term

6. People Who Appear to be Resistant to Punishment
Psychopathic risk takers
Those under the influence of a substance
Those with a history of being punished

7. 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

8. Evidence Based Practice is:
Easier to think of as Evidence Based Decision Making
2. Involves several steps and encourages the use of validated tools and treatments.
3. Not just about the tools you have but also how you use them

9. How To Digest This Information
Think in terms of own agency
Think in terms of outside agencies
Think in terms of a system perspective

10. Evidence Based Decision Making Requires
Assessment information
Relevant research
Available programming
Evaluation
Professionalism and knowledge from staff

11. What does the Research tell us?
There is often a Misapplication of Research: “XXX Study Says”
- the problem is if you believe every study we wouldn’t eat anything (but we would drink a lot of red wine!)
Looking at one study can be a mistake
Need to examine a body of research
So, what does the body of knowledge about correctional interventions tell us?

12. A Large Body of Research Has Indicated….
….that correctional services and interventions can be effective in reducing recidivism for offenders, however, not all programs and interventions are equally effective
The most effective approaches are based on some principles of effective interventions
Risk (Who)
Need (What)
Treatment (How)
Program Integrity (How Well)

13. Let’s Start with the Risk Principle
Risk refers to risk of reoffending and not the seriousness of the offense. You can be a low risk felon or a high risk felon, a low risk misdemeanant or a high risk misdemeanant.

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

15. #1: Targeting Higher Risk Offenders
It is important to understand that even with EBP there will be failures.
Even if you reduce recidivism rates you will still have high percentage of failures

16. 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%

17. 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

18. #2: 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

19. 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

20. Study of Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision in Canada
Recidivism Rates
Bonta, J et al., A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program., Vol. 27 No 3: Criminal Justice and Behavior

21. 2002 STUDY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS IN OHIO
Largest study of community based correctional treatment facilities ever done
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
We also examined program characteristics

22. Determination of Risk
Each offender was given a risk score based on 14 items that predicted outcome.
This allowed us to compare low risk offenders who were placed in a program to low risk offenders that were not, high risk to high risk, and so forth.

23. Reduced Recidivism
Increased Recidivism

27. 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

28. Treatment Effects for Low Risk: New Felon Conviction
Just over 10% of the sample here---some instability in findings

29. Treatment Effects for Moderate Risk: New Felony Conviction
Just over 10% of the sample here---some instability in findings

30. Treatment Effects for High Risk: New Felony Convictions
Just over 10% of the sample here---some instability in findings

31. 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%

32. 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

33. Major Set of Risk/Need Factors
Antisocial/procriminal attitudes, values, beliefs and cognitive emotional states
Procriminal associates and isolation from anticriminal others
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

34. Major Set of Risk/Need Factors Cont.
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
Low levels of personal, educational, vocational, or financial achievement
Low levels of involvement in prosocial leisure activities
Substance Abuse

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

36. More likely to hang around with individuals with criminal backgrounds
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

37. 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)

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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

41. Major Risk and/or Need Factor and Promising Intermediate Targets for Reduced Recidivism
Factor Risk Dynamic Need
History of Antisocial Early & continued Build noncriminal
Behavior involvement in a number alternative behaviors
antisocial acts in risky situations
Antisocial personality Adventurous, pleasure Build problem-solving, self-
seeking, weak self management, anger mgt &
control, restlessly aggressive coping skills
Antisocial cognition Attitudes, values, beliefs Reduce antisocial cognition,
& rationalizations recognize risky thinking &
supportive of crime, feelings, build up alternative
cognitive emotional states less risky thinking & feelings
of anger, resentment, & Adopt a reform and/or
defiance anticriminal identity
Antisocial associates Close association with Reduce association w/
criminals & relative isolation criminals, enhance
from prosocial people association w/ prosocial people
Adopted from Andrews, D.A. et al, (2006). The Recent Past and Near Future of Risk and/or Need Assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52 (1).

42. Major Risk and/or Need Factor and Promising Intermediate Targets for Reduced Recidivism
Factor Risk Dynamic Need
Family and/or marital Two key elements are Reduce conflict, build
nurturance and/or caring positive relationships, better monitoring and/or communication, enhance
supervision monitoring & supervision
School and/or work Low levels of performance Enhance performance,
& satisfaction rewards, & satisfaction
Leisure and/or recreation Low levels of involvement Enhancement involvement
& satisfaction in anti- & satisfaction in prosocial
criminal leisure activities activities
Substance Abuse Abuse of alcohol and/or Reduce SA, reduce the
drugs personal & interpersonal
supports for SA behavior,
enhance alternatives to SA
Adopted from Andrews, D.A. et al, (2006). The Recent Past and Near Future of Risk and/or Need Assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52 (1).

43. 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 Invited Submission to the International Community Corrections Association Monograph Series Project

44. Assessment is the engine that drives effective correctional programs
Need to meet the risk and need principle
Reduces bias
Aids decision making
Allows you to target dynamic risk factors and measure change

45. Family history of heart attacks Gender (males) Age (over 50)
According to the American Heart Association, there are a number of risk factors that increase your chances of a first heart attack
Family history of heart attacks
Gender (males)
Age (over 50)
Inactive lifestyle
Over weight
High blood pressure
Smoking
High Cholesterol level

46. The Development and Validation of the Ohio Risk and Need Assessment System (ORAS)

47. Project Overview
The Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) consists of four major instruments:
Pretrial
Community Supervision
Prison Intake
Reentry

48. Data Collection
Data collection for primary data was collected by UC research staff with structured interviews, file reviews, and self-report surveys
Recidivism data was collected by online court records by county of arrest as well as OHLEG
Total Sample was 1,837 from across Ohio

49. Domains Examined Pro-criminal views/criminal thinking
Friends and criminal acquaintances
Education
Family and social relationships
Residence stability and safety
Alcohol abuse/use
Drug abuse/use
Mental and physical health
Employment (status and values)
Criminal history

50. Domains Examined 11. Financial stress
12. Involvement in pro-social activities
13. Physical and sexual abuse
14. Problem recognition
15. Treatment motivation, needs, expectations
16. Anxiety/negative emotionality
17. Empathy/perspective taking
18. Coping skills/values
19. Anger/frustration

51. The Pretrial Instrument
First entry into the ORAS system
Outcome indicator included Failure to Appear and New Arrest

53. Cutoffs Scores
The descriptive statistics revealed that there were very few high risk cases, indicating that the cutoffs should be adjusted to provide better representation for all groups
Revised cutoffs and percentages
N %
Low:
Medium:
High:

54. Cutoffs Failure to Appear New Arrest
Yes the zero is correct, I tried to shift the cut points to eliminate it, but this messed with the validity of the other scales.
r = .128
r = .206

55. Cutoffs: Any Violation
Differences in Recidivism Rates for each Risk Level
(r = .223, n=452)

56. Community Supervision Risk Assessment Tool (ORAS-CST)

57. Final Domains on the ORAS-CST
Criminal /Supervision History (6 items)
Education, Employment and Finances(6 items)
Family and Social Support (5 items)
Neighborhood Problems (2 items)
Substance Use (5 items)
Peer Associations (4 items)
Criminal Attitudes and Behavioral Problems (7 items)

58. The Distribution of Risk Levels for Males in the Community Supervision Sample

59. Males: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community Supervision Sample
Percent with New Arrest
Low Medium = High = Very High 34+
ORAS-CST Risk Level Correlation with Recidivism: r = .373

60. The Distribution of Risk Levels for Females in the Community Supervision Sample

61. Females: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community Supervision Sample
Percent with New Arrest
Low Medium High Very High 29+
ORAS-CST Risk Level Correlation with Recidivism: r = .300

62. Additional Case Planning Items
Additional case planning items are incorporated into the final assessment.
These items are asked of the offender but the answers are used for case planning purposes and to facilitate targeting responsivity obstacles but which are not used in the final calculation for the prediction of adult criminal recidivism and/or probation violations.
These include questions pertaining to:
Low intelligence Physical handicap
Reading and writing limitations Mental health issues
History of abuse/neglect Treatment motivation
Transportation Child care
Language Ethnicity, and cultural barriers

63. Priorities in Case Management
Each domain provides cut points that indicate the priority the domain should take in service provision.
Individuals who score high have high deficits in these categories and are more likely to re-offend.

64. Priorities in Case Management
Education and Finances
Criminal History
Correlation with Recidivism
Criminal History r =.204
Education, Emp Fin r =.215
Percent Arrested by Priority Level
Low (0-3)
Med (4-6)
High (7-8)
Percent Arrested by Priority Level
Low (0-1)
Med (2-4)
High (5-6)

65. Priorities in Case Management
Neighborhood Problems
Family and Social Support
Percent Arrested
Percent Arrested
Correlation with Recidivism
Family and Support r =.117
Neighborhood Problems r =.200
Percent Arrested by Priority Level
Low (0-1)
Med (2-3)
High (4-5)
Percent Arrested by Priority Level
Low (0)
Med (1)
High (2-3)

66. Priorities in Case Management
Peers
Substance Abuse
Percent Arrested
Percent Arrested
Correlation with Recidivism
Substance Abuse r =.140
Neighborhood Problems r =.323
Percent Arrested by Priority Level
Low (0-2)
Med (3-4)
High (5-6)
Percent Arrested by Priority Level
Low (0-1)
Med (2-4)
High (5-8)

67. Priorities in Case Management
Criminal Attitudes and Behavior Patterns
Percent Arrested
Correlation with Recidivism
Criminal Attitudes and Behavior Problems r = .241
Percent Arrested by Priority Level
Low (0-3)
Med (4-8)
High (9-13)

68. Screening Tool (ORAS-CSST)
Abbreviated version of the ORAS-CST
Designed to quickly identify low risk offenders who may not need case management priorities and a full assessment.
4 Items taken from the ORAS-CST
Scores range from 0 - 7
Overall Correlation with new arrest: r =.381

69. The Distribution of Risk Levels for Males with the Community Supervision Screen

70. Males: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community Supervision Screen
Percent with New Arrest
Low Med – High Risk (3-7)
ORN-CS Screen Score Correlation with Recidivism: r = .372

71. The Distribution of Risk Levels for Females with the Community Supervision Screen

72. Females: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community Supervision Screen
Percent with New Arrest
Low Med – High Risk (4-7)
ORN-CS Screen Score Correlation with Recidivism: r = .365

73. Prison Reentry Assessment Tool (ORAS-RT)

74. Final Domains Criminal /Supervision History (8 items)
Social Capital and Support (5 items)
Criminal Attitudes and Behavioral Patterns (7 items)

75. The Distribution of Risk Levels for Males in the Prison Release Sample

76. Males: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Prison Release Sample
Percent with New Arrest
Low Medium High 16+
ORAS-PRT Risk Level Correlation with Recidivism: r = .295

77. The Distribution of Risk Levels for Females in the Prison Release Sample

78. Females: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Prison Release Sample
Percent with New Arrest
Low Medium = High = 15+
ORAS-PRT Risk Level Correlation with Recidivism: r = .442

79. Advantage to ORAS Developed and validated on Ohio population
Assessments at various decision points
Non-proprietary
Will be fully automated
Training and training of trainers available
Can be used for case planning and reassessment
Standardizes assessment across the State

80. Some Common Problems with Offender Assessment
Assess offenders but process ignores important factors
Assess offenders but don’t distinguish levels (high, moderate, low)
Assess offenders then don’t use it – everyone gets the same treatment
Make errors and don’t correct
Don’t assess offenders at all
Do not adequately train staff in use or interpretation
Assessment instruments are not validated or normed

81. List three speeches that have changed your life

82. List three people who have changed your life

83. Treatment Principle The most effective interventions are behavioral:
Focus on current factors that influence behavior
Action oriented

84. Results from Meta Analysis: Behavioral vs. NonBehavioral
Reduced Recidivism
Andrews, D.A An Overview of Treatment Effectiveness. Research and Clinical Principles, Department of Psychology, Carleton University. The N refers to the number of studies.

85. Most Effective Behavioral Models
Structured social learning where new skills and behavioral are modeled
Cognitive behavioral approaches that target criminogenic risk factors

86. Social Learning
Refers to several processes through which individuals acquire attitudes, behavior, or knowledge from the persons around them. Both modeling and instrumental conditioning appear to play a role in such learning

87. The Four Principles of Cognitive Intervention
Thinking affects behavior
Antisocial, distorted, unproductive irrational thinking can lead to antisocial and unproductive behavior
Thinking can be influenced
We can change how we feel and behave by changing what we think

88. Recent Meta-Analysis of Cognitive Behavioral Treatment for Offenders by Landenberger & Lipsey (2005)*
Reviewed 58 studies:
19 random samples
23 matched samples
16 convenience samples
Found that on average CBT reduced recidivism by 25%, but the most effective configurations found more than 50% reductions

89. Significant Findings (effects were stronger if):
Sessions per week (2 or more) - RISK
Implementation monitored - FIDELITY
Staff trained on CBT - FIDELITY
Higher proportion of treatment completers -RESPONSIVITY
Higher risk offenders - RISK
Higher if CBT is combined with other services - NEED

90. Evaluation of a CBT Program: Thinking for a Change Lowenkamp and Latessa (2006)
Tippecanoe County Indiana
Probation +T4C vs. Probation
136 Treatment cases
97 Comparison cases
Variable follow up (range 6 to 64 months; average 26)
Outcome—arrest for new criminal behavior

91. Multivariate Model Controlled for
Risk (prior arrests, prior prison, prior community supervision violations, history of drug use, history of alcohol problems, highest grade completed, employment status at arrest)
Age
Sex
Race
Time at risk or length of follow up time

92. Adjusted Recidivism Rates Comparing T4C Participants to Comparison Group

93. Included both misdemeanants and felons under community supervision
Recent Study of Non-Residential Community Correctional Programs in Ohio involving over 13,000 Offenders
Included both misdemeanants and felons under community supervision
Programs included day reporting centers, work release, ISP, and electronic monitoring programs

94. TYPE OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION PROGRAM DID NOT MATTER: FOUR FACTORS WERE SIGNIFCICANTLY RELATED TO OUTCOME
Proportion of higher risk offenders in program (at least 75% of offenders in programs were moderate or high risk)
Level of supervision for higher risk offenders (high risk offenders averaged longer periods of supervision than low risk)
More treatment for higher risk offenders (at least 50% more time spent in treatment)
More referrals for services for higher risk offenders (at least 3 referrals for every 1 received by low risk)

95. Changes in Recidivism by Program Factors for Probation Programs
Reductions in Recidivism
Increased Recidivism

96. Change in Recidivism by 4 Point Factor Score for Probation Programs
Reduced Recidivism
Increased Recidivism

97. What Doesn’t Work with Offenders?

98. Lakota tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. However, in corrections, and in other affairs, we often try other strategies, including the following:
Buy a stronger whip.
Change riders
Say things like “This is the way we always have ridden this horse.”
Appoint a committee to study the horse.
Arrange to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.
Create a training session to increase our riding ability.
Harness several dead horses together for increased speed.
Declare that “No horse is too dead to beat.”
Provide additional funding to increase the horse’s performance.
Declare the horse is “better, faster, and cheaper” dead.
Study alternative uses for dead horses.
Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.

99. Ineffective Approaches
Programs that cannot maintain fidelity
Drug prevention classes focused on fear and other emotional appeals
Shaming offenders
Drug education programs
Non-directive, client centered approaches
Bibliotherapy
Freudian approaches
Talking cures
Self-Help programs
Vague unstructured rehabilitation programs
Medical model
Fostering self-regard (self-esteem)
“Punishing smarter” (boot camps, scared straight, etc.)

100. The Fidelity Principle: Make Sure Programs Are Delivered With Fidelity and Integrity

101. Program Integrity and Recidivism
Every major study we have done has found a strong relationship between program integrity and recidivism
Higher integrity score – greater the reductions in recidivism

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

103. Program Integrity—Relationship Between Program Integrity Score And Treatment Effect for Residential Programs
Reduced Recidivism
Increased Recidivism
0-30
31-59
60-69
70+

104. Lessons Learned from the Research
Who you put in a program is important – pay attention to risk
What you target is important – pay attention to criminogenic needs
How you target offender for change is important – use behavioral approaches

105. Important Considerations
Offender assessment is the engine that drives effective programs
helps you know who & what to target
Design programs around empirical research
helps you know how to target offenders
Program Integrity make a difference
Service delivery, disruption of criminal networks, training/supervision of staff, support for program, QA, evaluation