What Works and What Doesn’t in Reducing Recidivism: The Principles of Effective Intervention:

1. What Works and What Doesn’t in Reducing Recidivism: The Principles of Effective Intervention: Presented by: Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D. Center for Criminal Justice Research Division of Criminal Justice University of Cincinnati www.uc.edu/criminaljustice

2. How To Digest This Information • Think in terms of own agency • Think in terms of outside agencies/vendors • Think in terms of a system perspective

3. Evidence Based – What does it mean? There are different forms of evidence: • The lowest form is anecdotal evidence, but it makes us feel good • The highest form is empirical evidence – results from controlled studies, but it doesn’t make us feel good

4. 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

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

6. Another important concept is risk: Risk: Refers to risk of reoffending. Recidivism rates are compared over a standard and specified follow-up period.

7. Misapplication of Research“XXX Study Says” 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 • Three ways researchers summarize research: 1. Traditional literature review 2. Ballot Counting 3. Meta-Analysis • Meta-analysis is now the favored approach to conducting a sytematic review of research studies. Meta-analysis provides a quantitative review of a body of literature

8. Meta Analysis • Meta analysis is a study of studies • Researchers gather and code primary studies • Data is then used to estimate an average effect size on recidivism

9. Advantages of Meta Analysis • Easily replicated • Identification of range of effect sizes as well as an average • Can estimate the changes in magnitude of effects depending on type of offender, type of treatment, quality of research design, etc. • Allow for organization and summary of large volumes of data • Can easily add new studies as they become available • From a policy perspective it provides more definitive conclusions than typical narrative reviews

10. FROM THE EARLIEST REVIEWS: • Not a single reviewer of studies of the effects of official punishment alone (custody, mandatory arrests, increased surveillance, etc.) has found consistent evidence of reduced recidivism. • At least 40% and up to 60% of the studies of correctional treatment services reported reduced recidivism rates relative to various comparison conditions, in every published review.

11. Criminal Sanctions versus Treatment Mean Phi Reduced Recidivism 0.15 Increased Recidivism -0.07 Treatment .15 (Number of Studies=124) CS -.07 (Number of Studies=30)

12. Criminal Sanctions vs Treatment for Youthful Offenders Number of studies=175 Number of studies=54 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 -0.02 -0.04 Criminal Sanctions Treatment Yes -0.02 0.13 Source: Dowden and Andrews (1999), What Works in Young Offender Treatment: A Meta Analysis. Forum on Correctional Research.

13. 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

14. Most researchers who study correctional interventions have concluded: • Without some form of human intervention or services there is unlikely to be much effect on recidivism from punishment alone • The evidence also indicates that while treatment is more effective in reducing recidivism than punishment – Not all treatment programs are equally effective

15. Behavioral vs. NonBehavioral Reduced Recidivism Increased Recidivism Andrews, D.A. 1994. An Overview of Treatment Effectiveness. Research and Clinical Principles, Department of Psychology, Carleton University. The N refers to the number of studies.

16. Meta-Analysis of Treatment for Femalesby Dowden and Andrews Dowden, C., and D. Andrews (1999). What Works for Female Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Review. Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 45 No. 4.

17. Another important body of knowledge to understand is the research on risk factors What are the risk factors correlated with criminal conduct?

18. Factors Correlated With Risk Mean r # of studies Lower class origins 0.06 97 Personal distress/psychopathology 0.08 226 Educational/Vocational achievement 0.12 129 Parental/Family Factors 0.18 334 Temperament/misconduct/personality 0.21 621 Antisocial attitudes/associates 0.22 168 Note: A re-analysis of Gendreau, Andrews, Goggin & Chanteloupe (1992) by Andrews & Bonta (1994)

19. Mentally Disordered Offenders (MDOs) Conventional Clinical Wisdom: • Criminal activities of MDOs best explained by psychopathological models • Assessments typically focus on psychiatric diagnoses, psychiatric symptomatology, and personal distress (i.e. anxiety, depression) • Assessments are often costly and time consuming

20. MDOs Continued Review of the Empirical Research: • The Psychopathological model has little relevance regarding the prediction of MDO criminal behavior • Gendreau conducted meta-analysis on studies of psychiatric symptomatology and general recidivism: Correlation=ZERO • Bonta’s meta analysis found correlation between having a diagnosed mental disorder, mood disorder, or psychosis and general/violent recidivism ranged from r = .01 to -.17. • Criminogenic risk factors were the strongest predictors (r=.23)

21. Meta-Analysis of Risk Factors by Simourd Mean Adjusted r Risk Factor Adjusted R #Studies Lower social class .05 38 Personal distress/psychopathy .07 34 Family structure/parental problems .07 28 Minor personality variables .12 18 Poor parent-child relations .20 82 Personal educational/vocational achievement .28 68 Temperament/misconduct/self control .38 90 Antisocial attitudes/associates .48 106 Source: Simourd, L. (1993) Correlates of Delinquency: A Look at Gender Differences. Forum on Correctional Research. 6:26-31

22. Correlates of Criminal Conduct and Gender by Simourd and Andrews Factor Male Female Lower class origins .04(58) .03(12) Personal distress/psychopathology .09(157) .08(19) Personal education/vocational achievement .11(96) .13(7) Parental/family factors .16(180) .16(43) Temperament/misconduct/personality .18(461) .23(38) Antisocial attitudes/associates .21(113) .23(12) Simourd, L., and D.A. Andrews, 1994. Correlates of Delinquency: A Look at Gender Differences. Forum on Corrections Research, Vol. 6: 26-31

23. Simourd and AndrewsMean Adjusted r by Gender Risk Factor Females Males Lower social class .07 .06 Personal Distress/psychopathy .10 .09 Family structure/parental problems .07 .09 Minor personality variables .18 .22 Poor parent-child relations .20 .22 Personal educational/vocational achievement .24 .23 Temperament or misconduct problems .35 .36 Antisocial attitudes/peers .39 .40 Source: Simourd, L., and D.A. Andrews (1994) Correlates of Delinquency: A Look at Gender Differences. Forum on Correctional Research. 6:26-31

24. Research by Andrews, Gendreau and others has led to the identification of some major risk/need factors

25. Major Set of Risk/Need Factors • Antisocial/prociminal attitudes, values, beliefs and cognitive-emotional states

26. Cognitive Emotional States • Rage • Anger • Defiance • Criminal Identity

27. Identifying Procriminal Attitudes, Values & Beliefs Procriminal sentiments are what people think, not how people think; they comprise the content of thought, not the skills of thinking. What to listen for: • Negative expression about the law • Negative expression about conventional institutions, values, rules, & procedures; including authority • Negative expressions about self-management of behavior; including problem solving ability • Negative attitudes toward self and one’s ability to achieve through conventional means • Lack of empathy and sensitivity toward others

28. Neutralization & Minimizations Offenders often neutralize their behavior. Neutralizations are a set of verbalizations which function to say that in particular situations, it is “OK” to violate the law Neutralization Techniques include: • Denial of Responsibility: Criminal acts are due to factors beyond the control of the individual, thus, the individual is guilt free to act. • Denial of Injury: Admits responsibility for the act, but minimizes the extent of harm or denies any harm • Denial of the Victim: Reverses the role of offender & victim & blames the victim • “System Bashing”: Those who disapprove of the offender’s acts are defined as immoral, hypocritical, or criminal themselves. • Appeal to Higher Loyalties: “Live by a different code” – the demands of larger society are sacrificed for the demands of more immediate loyalties. (Sykes and Maltz, 1957)

29. Major set Risk/needs continued: 2. Procriminal associates and isolation from prosocial others

30. Reducing Negative Peer Associations • Restrict associates • Set and enforce curfews • Ban hangouts, etc. • Teach offender to recognize & avoid negative influences (people, places, things) • Practice new skills (like being assertive instead of passive) • Teach how to maintain relationships w/o getting into trouble • Identify or develop positive associations: mentors, family, friends, teachers, employer, etc. • Train family and friends to assist offender • Set goal of one new friend (positive association) per month • Develop sober/prosocial leisure activities

31. Major set Risk/Needs continued: 3. Temperamental & anti social personality pattern conducive to criminal activity including: • Weak Socialization • Impulsivity • Adventurous • Pleasure seeking • Restless Aggressive • Egocentrism • Below Average Verbal intelligence • A Taste For Risk • Weak Problem-Solving/lack of Coping & Self-Regulation Skills

32. Major set of Risk/Need factors continued: • A history of antisocial behavior: • Evident from a young age • In a variety of settings • Involving a number and variety of different acts

33. Major set of Risk/Needs Continued: 5. Family 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 • Out right neglect and abuse

34. Major set of Risk/Needs continued: 6. Low levels of personal educational, vocational or financial achievement

35. Leisure and/or recreation 7. Low levels of involvement in prosocial leisure activities

36. Substance Abuse 8. Abuse of alcohol and/or drugs

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

38. Pennsylvania Parole StudySocial 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

39. 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)

40. 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

41. Pennsylvania Parole StudyLife on ParoleViolators 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

42. 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

43. 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).

44. 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).

45. This research has led to the identification of some principles

46. Principles of Effective Intervention • Risk Principle – target higher risk offenders (WHO) • Need Principle – target criminogenic risk/need factors (WHAT) • Treatment Principle – use behavioral approaches (HOW) • Fidelity Principle – implement program as designed (HOW WELL)

47. Risk Principle • Target those offender with higher probability of recidivism • Provide most intensive treatment to higher risk offenders • Intensive treatment for lower risk offender can increase recidivism

48. Results from a Recent Study of Treatment “Dosage” in a Prison Setting • 620 Incarcerated Males • Three variations in Cognitive Behavioral Treatment: • 100 hours • 200 hours • 300 hours • Comprehensive assessments were conducted and offenders assigned based on risk level and needs • Recidivism defined as incarceration (either a new conviction or revocation); one year follow-up. • Dosage of treatment appeared to be an important factor: Bourgon, G, and B. Armstrong (2006). Transferring the Principles of Effective Treatment into a “Real World” Setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32 (1): 3-25.

49. Dosage Continued: • Reductions in recidivism increased between 1.2% to 1.7% for each additional 20 hours of treatment • For Moderate risk offenders with few needs, 100 hours was sufficient to reduce recidivism • A 100 hour program had no effect on high risk offenders • For offenders deemed appropriate (i.e. either high risk or multiple needs, but not both), 200 hours were required to significantly reduce recidivism • If the offender is high risk & has multiple needs it may require in excess of 300 hours of treatment to affect recidivism

50. The Risk Principle & Correctional Intervention Results from Meta Analysis Reduced Recidivism Increased Recidivism Dowden & Andrews, 1999