slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
OBJECTIVES PowerPoint Presentation


312 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Evidence Based Practicesfor Juvenile JusticeWisconsin Juvenile Court Intake AssociationSeptember 23, 20091:00 -4:30pmWilderness Resort-Glacier CanyonWisconsin DellsSeptember 23, 2009

  2. OBJECTIVES • Understand the research around risk reduction • Examine ways the research is being applied in practical ways within correctional systems • Understand how and why you, as a corrections professional, are critical to whether an offender changes behavior • Identify the five key character traits required for a professional seeking risk reduction outcomes • Identify one or two things you can do immediately to improve outcomes © 2009 The Carey Group;

  3. Background: Mark Carey • Juvenile residential treatment counselor • Juvenile and adult probation/parole officer • Director of four county • Community Corrections agencies • Deputy Commissioner, • MN DOC; Juvenile and • Community Services • Warden, women’s prison • Consultant/trainer

  4. Definition • Evidence Based Practices: A progressive, organizational use of direct, current scientific evidence to guide and inform efficient and effective correctional services. © 2009 The Carey Group;

  5. Forerunner was evidence based medicine • 1836: bloodletting was routine • French physician Pierre Louis: one of first clinical trials in medicine • Found bloodletting was linked to far more deaths © 2009 The Carey Group;

  6. LEARNINGS: STUDIES AND EXPERIENCE • Meta-analysis: are hundreds of studies • We know a lot about what works in reducing recidivism • Just as important: what doesn’t work • We have learned why initiatives have failed and succeeded © 2009 The Carey Group;

  7. © 2009 The Carey Group;

  8. Research Standards Gold: Random Assignment Silver: Matched + Controls Bronze: Matched + ?Controls Iron: Inadequate Design Dirt: Conclusive Doesn’t Work

  9. Best sources for “cleaned up” research Links from NIC website: • Washington State Institute for Public PolicyConducts evaluations of evidence-based offender treatment interventions in the State of Washington. • Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of ColoradoConducts studies, provides information, and offers technical assistance regarding violence prevention. • The Corrections Institute, University of CincinnatiAssists agencies seeking to change offender behavior. • Bureau of Government Research, University of MarylandHelps government agencies identify and implement "best practices." • Institute of Behavioral Research at TCUStudies addiction treatment in community and correctional settings. • Campbell CollaborationStudies the effects of interventions in social, behaviorial, and educational arenas. • National Criminal Justice Reference Service © 2009 The Carey Group;

  10. State of MarylandProactive Community Supervision Results © 2009 The Carey Group;; 651-226-4755

  11. © 2009 The Carey Group;; 651-226-4755

  12. © 2009 The Carey Group;; 651-226-4755

  13. -17% Change in Rate Pre-TCIS to Post-TCIS © 2009 The Carey Group;; 651-226-4755

  14. Why are recidivism rates high? • We are giving too much attention to the low risk and too little on the high risk • Programs have not applied research knowledge nor are these practices applied with fidelity • The system is not in alignment • We are focusing on the wrong issues © 2009 The Carey Group;

  15. Lessons Learned • 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 and match to offender type © 2009 The Carey Group;

  16. Impact of Adhering to the Core Principles of Effective Intervention: Risk, Needs, and Responsivity* Better outcomes * meta-analysis of 230 studies (Andrews et al., 1999) Poorer outcomes

  17. Risk Principle Summary • Risk Principle Who • Needs Principle What • Treatment & Responsivity Principles What Works How © 2009 The Carey Group;; 651-226-4755

  18. Risk Principle Summary(Who) • Do not target low risk offenders • Do not target extremely high risk offenders • Do target medium to high risk offenders © 2009 The Carey Group;; 651-226-4755

  19. What happens when apply intensive treatmentto high and low risk populations? Change in recidivism © 2009 The Carey Group;

  20. Lowenkamp, Christopher and Edward Latessa, Evaluation of Ohio’s Community Based Correctional Facilities and Halfway House Programs, University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research (Cincinnati, OH: Jan. 1, 2002)

  21. © 2009 The Carey Group;; 651-226-4755

  22. Link Between Treatment and Recidivism CRIMINAL SANCTIONS - .07 (30 tests) INAPROPRIATE TREATMENT - .06 (38 tests) ISP’S - .07 (47 tests) APPROPRIATE TREATMENT .30 (54 tests) © 2009 The Carey Group; Justice System Assessment & Training

  23. Deterrence Theory • Aware of the sanction • Perceive it as unpleasant • Weigh the costs and benefits • Assess the risk • Make a rational choice © 2009 The Carey Group;

  24. © 2009 The Carey Group;

  25. 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 Source: Ed Latessa, Ph.D. © 2009 The Carey Group;

  26. Assessment is based on the risk and need principles • Riskis based on likelihood of re-offense • Actuarial tools get better results • Best if validated on own population • Most tools do not distinguish on level of offense • Some tools target kind of offense (eg, sex, domestic, DUI) • Cost and time are major factors • Most need additional tools © 2009 The Carey Group;

  27. RESULTS DRIVEN PRACTICE Professional judgment alone Use of actuarial tool Use of actuarial tool with professional judgment © 2009 The Carey Group;

  28. 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 or depression) 7) Failure to eat fruits and vegetables daily 8) Failure to exercise © 2009 The Carey Group;; 651-226-4755

  29. A Balanced Approach • Risk Management (low risk) • Involves providing least restrictive, most appropriate sanctions & supervision • Risk Reduction (moderate-high risk) • Involves determining criminogenic needs and reducing risk factors through effective intervention & appropriate supervision • Risk Control (extreme high risk) • Involves techniques that control risk of reoffending while under correctional authority © 2009 The Carey Group;

  30. Place Them in the Category -Personal distress -Education -Temperament -Leisure -Intelligence -Health issues -Mental Illness -Companions -Anti-social beliefs -Employment -Family issues -Self esteem -Substance abuse

  31. Needs Principle Summary(What) • Target criminogenic needs (at least 3) • Do not target non-criminogenic needs unless have to © 2009 The Carey Group;; 651-226-4755

  32. Assessment is based on the risk and need principles • Needis based on life and personal conditions • Are dynamic as opposed to static • Are predictive • Provide the ingredients for a case intervention • Can be measured over time to determine effectiveness • If done correctly, can drive major correctional policy • Eg, discharge, release, conditions, admissions © 2009 The Carey Group;

  33. The Big Four Source: Ed Latessa, Ph.D. (with slight modification)

  34. Temperament Examples • Lack of empathy • Anger and hostility • Poor problem solving • Risk taking • Impulsive • Lack of focus • Narcissistic © 2009 The Carey Group;

  35. Family Stressors Familiar 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 © 2009 The Carey Group;

  36. The Next Four Source: Ed Latessa, Ph.D. © 2009 The Carey Group;

  37. Surprises • What is not on the list that surprises you? • What is not in the top four that surprises you? © 2009 The Carey Group;

  38. Too Much Information orToo Little Relevant Information Amount of support Motivation Posture Scars/tattoos Race/ethnicity Current emotional disposition Age Past supervision Employment history Self esteem Gender Military record Parental influence Degree of deference Substance abuse Physical health Prior record Height/weight Educational achievement Medications Previous treatments IQ Verbal intelligence Previous abuse history Poor self control Neighborhood Mental health Siblings Prior successes Finances Prior failures Instigator/follower Peers Family name Attitude/beliefs Nationality Level of violence © 2009 The Carey Group;

  39. Applying the assessment • GET OUT OF THE WAY. Intensive treatment for lower-risk offenders can actually increase recidivism • LIVE IN THEIR BACK POCKET. Provide most intensive treatment to higher-risk offenders • ZERO IN. Target those offenders with higher probability of recidivism © 2009 The Carey Group;

  40. 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 Need Principle © 2009 The Carey Group;

  41. Recidivism Reductions as a Function of Targeting Multiple Criminogenic vs. Non-Criminogenic Needs* Better outcomes More criminogenic than non-criminogenic needs More non-criminogenic than criminogenic needs Poorer outcomes (Andrews, Dowden, & Gendreau, 1999; Dowden, 1998) © 2009 The Carey Group;

  42. Effective Assessments • Has screening criteria (like the Proxy) • Offenders assessed on all major risk, need, and responsivity factors • Objective and standardized (a clear method of application to reduce subjectivity) • Instruments are normed and validated Source: Ed Latessa, Ph.D. © 2009 The Carey Group;

  43. Common Assessment Problems • Assess offender but ignore important factors • Don’t distinguish between L, M, H risk • Don’t use it: all get the same treatment • Make errors and don’t correct • Don’t assess offenders at all • Don’t adequately train staff in use/interpretation • Instrument is not validated or normed Source: Ed Latessa, Ph.D. © 2009 The Carey Group;

  44. Treatment Principle Summary(What Works and How) Also called the Responsivity Principle • Some programs work; some don’t • Focus on criminogenic needs (especially top four) • Match right offender to right program • Use a cognitive behavioral approach • Use positive reinforcements • Seek right levels of dosage/intensity • Quality assurance

  45. Responsivity Reminder: • Average recidivism reduction/gain • Inappropriate treatment -.06 • Unspecified treatment .13 • Appropriate treatment .30 © 2009 The Carey Group;

  46. What Doesn’t Work to Reduce Recidivism • Punishment, sanctions, or incarceration • Specific deterrence, or fear-based programs, e.g. Scared Straight • Physical challenge programs • Military models of discipline and physical fitness - Boot Camps • Intensive supervision without treatment © 2009 The Carey Group;; 651-226-4755

  47. Shaming programs Drug education programs Drug prevention classes focused on fear or emotional appeal Non-action oriented group counseling What Doesn’t Work to Reduce Recidivism (continued) © 2009 The Carey Group;; 651-226-4755

  48. What Doesn’t Work to Reduce Recidivism (continued) • Bibliotherapy • Freudian approaches • Vague, unstructured rehabilitation programs • Self-esteem programs • Non skill-based education programs © 2009 The Carey Group;; 651-226-4755

  49. What Does Work to Reduce Recidivism • Programs that: • Focus on criminogenic needs (especially top four) • Match right offender to right program • Use a cognitive behavioral approach • Use positive reinforcements • Seek right levels of dosage/intensity • Have built-in quality assurance © 2009 The Carey Group;; 651-226-4755

  50. Responsivity:Understanding gender • Differences between male and female • Based on “The Opposite Sex” by Hara Estroff Morano and Erik Strand, Psychology Today, July/August 2003 issue • Hint: nine are attributed to men, and nine to women © 2009 The Carey Group;