1. THE NSW BUREAU OF CRIME STATISTICS AND RESEARCH APPLIED RESEARCH IN CRIME AND JUSTICE CONFERENCE 2015 REDUCING THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES OF OFFENDERS Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D Director, Penn State Justice Center for Research and Professor of Criminology Based on a paper by D.L. MacKenzie and G. Zajac, “What Works in Corrections: the Impact of Correctional Interventions on Recidivism submitted to the U.S. National Academies of Science, 2014

2. REDUCING THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES OF OFFENDERS OVERVIEW Changes in correctional philosophy in the U.S. Impact of changes Evidence-based corrections Improvement in quality of research What Works to reduce recidivism Fidelity and implementation

3. 1975: LIPTON, MARTINSON AND WILKS STUDY FOR NEW YORK CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM What Works? “(with) few and isolated exceptions the rehabilitative efforts that have been reported so far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism.“ (Martinson, 1974, p25)

4. WORK WAS WIDELY INTERPRETED AS: “NOTHING WORKS”

5. MARTINSON AND COLLEAGUE’S CONCLUSIONS Inadequate research designs and methods Poorly implemented programs Impossible to determine from the existing data whether anything could work!!!!!

6. TIMES WERE RIPE FOR CHANGE Social upheavals Civil rights, women’s rights, sexual freedom War in Vietnam Corrections: riots in prison, unfairness of the system Dramatic change in U.S. corrections Move away from rehabilitation More punitive, law and order and get tough Deterrence and incapacitation

7. CHANGES IN PHILOSOPHY OF CORRECTIONS Impact on correctional system and What was studied

8. IMPACT ON CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM Move away from rehabilitation, “Nothing Works” Use of incapacitation and deterrence Law and order philosophy U.S. Incarceration Rate in State and Federal Institutions

9. CHANGES SINCE MARTINSON’S REPORT Corrections philosophy Evidence-based corrections Improvement in quality of research Emphasis on implementation

10. CHANGES IN PHILOSOPHY More punitive Law and order Incapacitation Deterrence

11. PROGRAMS/ INTERVENTIONS Correctional boot camps Longer prison sentences More prison sentences Urine testing Intensive supervision

12. EVIDENCE-BASED CORRECTIONS Use of science in decision making Identify effective correctional programs, interventions, strategies Correctional interventions should be those shown in scientific studies to have the desired impact

13. WHAT WORKS IN CORRECTIONS? What have we learned from the research? Focus on reducing recidivism Examined management strategies, programs, interventions, treatment

14. DETERMINING WHAT WORKS Maryland Report assessments Quality of research Significance and direction of effects Meta-analyses

15. MARYLAND CRIME PREVENTION REPORT Requested by U.S. Congress Comprehensive evaluation of effectiveness crime prevention efforts (including corrections) “What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising” Sherman et. al.

16. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURE 2 STAGE ASSESSM ENT 1.Assess scientific quality and significance 2. Examine groups of studies DECISIONS What works What doesn’t work Promising Don’t know

17. SCORING FOR SCIENTIFIC QUALITY ScoreCharacteristic 1Very poor quality 2Association 3Comparison group 4Similar comparison group (propensity scoring, controls) 5Control group/ Experimental design Randomly assigned Gold standard

18. META-ANALYSES Analysis of a group of studies Quantitative analysis Effect sizes Careful coding of studies program components participant characteristics Quality of research design/ methods

19. BOOT CAMP META-ANALYSIS EXAMPLE Analysis 41 Independent samples 144 located and evaluated 152 potentially relevant 771 Documents 29 eligible studies 41 samples – 14 juveniles, 27 adults

20. FOREST PLOT FROM META-ANALYSIS: CORRECTIONAL BOOT CAMPS ◊=Central tendency, lines=confidence intervals

21. IN-PRISON DRUG TREATMENT

22. QUALITY OF RESEARCH Many more experiments (random assignment) since Martinson’s report Experiments with offending outcomes 35 from 1957-1981 (Farrington) 83 from 1982-2002 (Farrington and Welsh) Most meta-analyses control for quality of research Some meta-analyses use only randomized trials

23. IMPROVEMENT BUT STILL RELATIVELY FEW RANDOMIZED TRIALS 284 Studies at scientific method score of 2 or higher Only 14.8 % of the studies scored “5” 23.2 % scored “2” – too low to use to determine “What Works”

24. USING META-ANALYSES TO DETERMINE WHAT WORKS Comprehensive or theoretical meta-analyses Large number of studies More inclusive in eligibility criteria Support for various theoretical perspectives Identify general principles of treatment and effectiveness Intervention-specific meta-analyses Focus on specific types of programs, strategies or interventions Clearly define Does the particular type of intervention reduce recidivism? Campbell Collaboration

25. COMPREHENSIVE META-ANALYSES OF CORRECTION INTERVENTIONS Programs that follow the proposed principles (Andrews and Bonta 2006) are more effective than others Behavioral, skill-oriented or multimodal programs are more effective than other types of programs (Andrews, Bonta, Gendreau, Lipsey 1992, Losel 1995) Therapeutic rehabilitation programs more effective than punitive approaches (control and deterrence) (Lipsey and Cullen 2007; Lipsey 2009) Programs targeting high risk offenders are more effective (Lipsey 2009) Well implemented programs are more effective (Lipsey 2009)

26. INTERVENTION-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENTS WHAT WORKS? Drug treatment in community and prison Drug Courts Education Vocational Ed Some Sex offender treatment Cognitive skills programs NO EVIDENCE, DOES NOT WORK Boot Camps Scared Straight Correctional Industries Work programs Custodial sanctions Intensive supervision Life skills Batterer programs Electronic monitoring

27. CLASSIFYING PROGRAMS TypeExamplesEffective? Surveillance and controlElectronic monitoring, Intensive supervision NO Deterrence and punitiveScared Straight Longer or more prison NO DisciplineCorrectional boot campsNO Services and opportunitiesCorrectional industries Work programs NO Rehabilitation and skill building Cognitive skills Education YES

28. INTERVENTIONS USING “GET TOUGH” OR “LAW AND ORDER” PHILOSOPHY DO NOT WORK Surveillance and control Deterrence and punitive Discipline

29. WHY AREN’T PROGRAMS THAT INCREASE SERVICES AND OPPORTUNITIES EFFECTIVE? Offenders are not prepared to take advantage Don’t stop “street life, alcohol/drug use or partying Don’t get up to make it to work on time May not get along with others at work

30. INDIVIDUAL TRANSFORMATION Individual Differences Attitudes Thoughts Feelings, Environmental Opportunities Available housing Employment Poverty Behavior Criminal activities Prosocial activities Offenders must be changed before they are prepared to take advantage of opportunities in the environment (Giordano and colleagues, Maruna, Shover, Farrall)

31. WE’VE COME A LONG WAY SINCE MARTINSON Some programs do work New and better research techniques

32. GOOD NEWS Some interventions/programs work Increased number of experiments Emphasis on evidence-based corrections

33. BAD NEWS Many programs/ interventions implemented under “law & order” emphasis have been shown to be ineffective Quality of research Long way to go to reach other fields in number of experiments Meta-analyses search through thousands of studies to find level 3 or above Fidelity and Implementation still an issue

34. FIDELITY AND IMPLEMENTATION Well-trained staff Principles of effective programs Dosage Risk level Quality control

35. EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPLEMENTATION QUALITY Implementation Quality Intervention Effectiveness HighLow Effective Good Intervention Poor Intervention IneffectivePoor Intervention

36. MORAL IMPERATIVES Adequate research designs Well implemented programs and policies Using evidence about what works

37. THANK YOU Doris Layton MacKenzie 327 Pond Bldg Penn State University University Park, PA USA dlm69@psu.edu 814-867-3292

38. MacKenzie, D. L. (2005). The importance of using scientific evidence to make decisions about correctional programming. Criminology & Public Policy, 4 (2), 249-258. MacKenzie, D. (2000). Evidence-based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime and Delinquency, 46 (4), 471. MacKenzie, D. L. (2001). Corrections and sentencing in the 21st century: Evidence-based corrections and sentencing. The Prison Journal, 81 (3), 299-312. Campbell Collaboration. http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/crime_and_justice/index.phphttp://www.campbellcollaboration.org/crime_and_justice/index.php MacKenzie, D. L. (2002). Reducing the Criminal Activities of Known Offenders and Delinquents: Crime Prevention in the Courts and Corrections. In L. W. Sherman, B. C. Welsh, D. P. Farrington, & D. L. MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidence- Based Crime Prevention (pp. 330-404). London, UK: Harwood Academic Publishers. Reprinted revised edition 2006, NY: Routledge. Sherman, L. W., Welsh, B. C., Farrington, D. P., & MacKenzie, D. L. (Eds.). (2002). Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. London, UK: Harwood Academic Publishers. Reprinted revised edition 2006, NY: Routledge.