1. 1 Cost-Effective Strategies to Improve Public Safety and Reduce Recidivism Cost-Effective Strategies to Improve Public Safety and Reduce Recidivism Judge Roger K. Warren (Ret.) President Emeritus National Center for State Courts South Carolina Sentencing Reform Commission Columbia, South Carolina April 30, 2009

2. Sentencing/Corrections Flowchart 2

3. Purposes of Sentencing 1. “Just Deserts:” punishment proportionate to the gravity of the crime 2. Public Safety Rehabilitation/Specific Deterrence [Recidivism Reduction] Rehabilitation/Specific Deterrence [Recidivism Reduction] General Deterrence General Deterrence Incapacitation/Control Incapacitation/Control 3. Restitution/Restoration

4. 4 State Sentencing Reform: The Recent History Pre-1975: the “Rehabilitative Ideal” Pre-1975: the “Rehabilitative Ideal” –Rapid rise in violent crime –Disparities –“Nothing works” 1975-2005: Determinate Sentencing 1975-2005: Determinate Sentencing

5. 5 Sentencing Reform: The Recent History (cont.) The Consequences The Consequences –Highest incarceration rates in the world –Unprecedented recidivism rates –Rapidly growing costs –Great disparities –Diminishing benefit of incapacitation –Same violent crime rate as mid-70’s –We know “what works”

6. “What is done [today] in corrections would be grounds for malpractice in medicine.” (2002) Latessa, Cullen, and Gendreau, “Beyond Correctional Quackery…” (2002) Latessa, Cullen, and Gendreau, “Beyond Correctional Quackery…” 6

7. 7 State Chief Justices Top concerns of state trial judges in felony cases: 1.High rates of recidivism 2.Ineffectiveness of traditional probation supervision in reducing recidivism 3.Absence of effective community corrections programs

8. State Chief Justices Top two reform objectives: Reduce recidivism through expanded use of evidence-based practices, programs that work, and offender risk and needs assessment tools Promote the development, funding, and utilization of community-based programs for appropriate offenders

9. 9 Principles of EBP Risk Principle (Who) Risk Principle (Who) Needs Principle (What) Needs Principle (What) Responsivity Principle (How) Responsivity Principle (How)

10. “Putting more and more offenders on probation just perpetuates the problem….The same people are picked up again and again until they end up in the state penitentiary and take up space that should be used for more violent offenders.” Judge Herb Klein Miami, Florida Miami, Florida November, 1988 November, 1988 10

11. 11 Risk Principle (Who) The level of supervision or services should be matched to the risk level of the offender: i.e., higher risk offenders should receive more intensive supervision and services.

12. 12 Needs Principle (What) The targets for intervention should be those offender characteristics that have the most effect on the likelihood of re-offending.

13. Risk of Heart Attack 1) Elevated LDL and low HDL levels 2) Smoking 3) Diabetes 4) Hypertension 5) Abdominal obesity 6) Psychosocial (i.e., stress/depression) 7) Failure to eat fruits and vegetables 8) Failure to exercise Adapted from slide presentation by Dr. Chris Lowencamp

14. 14 Dynamic Risk Factors Anti-social attitudes Anti-social attitudes Anti-social friends and peers Anti-social friends and peers Anti-social personality pattern Anti-social personality pattern Family and/or marital factors Family and/or marital factors

15. Anti-Social Personality Pattern Lack of self-control Lack of self-control Risk taking Risk taking Impulsive Impulsive Poor problem solving Poor problem solving Lack of empathy Lack of empathy Narcissistic Narcissistic Anger and hostility Anger and hostility

16. 16 Dynamic Risk Factors Anti-social attitudes Anti-social attitudes Anti-social friends and peers Anti-social friends and peers Anti-social personality pattern Anti-social personality pattern Family and/or marital factors Family and/or marital factors Substance abuse Substance abuse Education issues Education issues Employment issues Employment issues Anti-social leisure activities Anti-social leisure activities

17. Responsivity Principle (How) The most effective services in reducing recidivism are cognitive behavioral interventions based on social learning principles.

18. Social Learning: Behaviors Have Consequences Positive Rewards Rewards Incentives Incentives Negative Sanctions should be swift, certain, proportionate, and graduated Sanctions should be swift, certain, proportionate, and graduated Sanctions do not need to be severe Sanctions do not need to be severe

19. BEHAVIOR THOUGHTS FEELINGS COGNITIVE STRUCTURE (BELIEFS AND ATTITUDES) Visible Sometimes Aware Beneath the Surface

20. 50% reduction in recidivism compared to traditional probation T4C: Recidivism Rates

21. 21 What Doesn’t Work Punishment, sanctions, or incarceration Punishment, sanctions, or incarceration Specific deterrence, or fear-based programs (e.g. Scared Straight) Specific deterrence, or fear-based programs (e.g. Scared Straight) Physical challenge programs Physical challenge programs Military models of discipline and physical fitness (e.g. Boot Camps) Military models of discipline and physical fitness (e.g. Boot Camps) Intensive supervision without treatment Intensive supervision without treatment

22. 22 Washington State Institute for Public Policy Meta-analysis of 571 studies Meta-analysis of 571 studies “Cautious” approach “Cautious” approach Adult EB programs reduce recidivism 10-20%, with a benefit/cost ratio of 2.5:1 Adult EB programs reduce recidivism 10-20%, with a benefit/cost ratio of 2.5:1 Moderate increase in EBP would avoid 2 new prisons, save $2.1 billion, and reduce crime rate by 8%. Moderate increase in EBP would avoid 2 new prisons, save $2.1 billion, and reduce crime rate by 8%.

23. EBP for Policy Makers Show me the money! Show me the money! Show me the data! Show me the data! 23

24. Sentencing/Corrections Flowchart 24

25. 25 Cost-Effective Strategies to Improve Public Safety and Reduce Recidivism Cost-Effective Strategies to Improve Public Safety and Reduce Recidivism Judge Roger K. Warren (Ret.) President Emeritus National Center for State Courts South Carolina Sentencing Reform Commission Columbia, South Carolina April 30, 2009