Transcript EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES - American Judges Association

EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES
REDUCING RECIDIVISM TO INCREASE
PUBLIC SAFETY
HON. WILLIAM RAY PRICE, JR.
Chief Justice, Missouri Supreme Court
HON. J. RICHARD COUZENS
Judge of the Placer County Superior Court (Ret.)
The Need For
Evidence Based Sentencing
Chief Justice William Ray Price, Jr.
• Since the 1980’s we attempted to incarcerate
our way out of crime and illegal drug use.
• The problem is, it didn’t work.
• We were tough on crime.
– Three strikes and your out.
– Throw away the key.
– The war on drugs
• But, we were not smart on crime.
• Let’s look at the numbers.
Our Criminal Sentencing Problem
Total Correctional Population Total Pop. Behind Bars
1982
2008
2,194,000
7,308,200
1982
2008
612,000
2,304,000
Cost of Increased Incarceration
• State correctional spending increased fourfold:
1988
2008
$11.7 billion
$47.3 billion
• “What we are seeing today is a growing
recognition that our approach to dealing with
convicted criminals is simply too costly. Not
only is the price too high, but the benefits are
too low. The states spend an estimated $50
billion on corrections annually, and the growth
of these outlays over the past 20 years has
outpace nearly all other essential government
services.” Joan Petersilia, Stanford Law School
Incarceration and Crime Rates
U.S. Crime Volume 1982-2008
• Violent Offenses
1982
2008
1,322,390
1,382,012
• Property Offenses
1982
2008
11,652,000
9,768,000
• Drug Offenses
1982
2007
676,000
1,841,200
The War on Drugs
• Drug Arrests
– 1980
– 2007
580,900
1,841,200
• As Percentage of All
Arrests
– 1980
– 2006
5.5%
13.14%
• Prison Population
– 1982
– 2008
612,000
2,304,000
↓
1,692,000 more people
behind bars
Drug Use Drives Crime
And Fills Prisons
Missouri New Prison Admissions (FY2004)
– 1,239
13%
Drug Convictions
– 2,037
20%
Probation for Drug
Offense Revoked
– 4,042
41%
Other Crimes But Active
Substance Abuse
____
74% of all new admissions are
related to illegal drug use
• The key measurement of the failure of our
incarceration strategy is the recidivism rate.
• Too many people, keep coming back.
U.S. Recidivism Rates
For all offenders (released 1994):
• Rearrest within 3 years:
67.5%
• Reconviction within 3 years:
46.9%
For drug offenders (released 1983
vs. released 1994):
• Rearrest rate increased
50.4%  66.7%
• Reconviction rate increased
35.3%  47%
• The Good News About Our Failed
Incarceration Based Policies Is That We Have
Learned a Better Way
• Evidence Based Sentencing Practices
• Focus On Results: Lowering Recidivism
• At a Lower Cost
• Evidence Based Practices
• Usually Reserve Prison Sentences for Violent and
Habitual Offenders, and
• Combine Strict Judicial Supervision, Behavioral
Modification, and Treatment to Non-Violent
Offenders Outside of Prison
• Driven By Evidence Based Proven Strategies
• The Key of Evidence Based Practices is to Assess the Risks and
Needs of Each Offender and Match the Most Effective and
Least Expensive Strategy to Change his or her Behavior.
• Usually, This Includes Swift Certain Sanctions For Bad
Behavior. Rewards For Good Behavior. And Treatment, When
Necessary
• Data is Collected and Analyzed to Determine Best Practices
• Evidence Based Alternatives Are Available In
Four Forms
• Diversionary
• Probationary
• Prison
• Reentry
• Diversionary Practices Are Pre-sentence
• They May Be Pre or Post Plea or
• With Stipulation of Facts
• They Avoid a Record of Conviction
• Drug Courts, DWI Courts, Mental Health
Courts, Veterans Courts are Typically
• Diversionary
• They Usually Include Treatment
Probationary Practices are Post Sentence
• HOPE is an Example of a Post Sentence
Alternative
• HOPE Avoids/Delays Incarceration By Using
Enhanced Probation Services
• Hope Replaces Revocation with Swift Certain Lesser
Local Sanctions
• Hope can also apply to Parole
• Treatment May or May Not Be Included
• Incarceration Can Be Evidence Based
• Personal Improvement / Not Years Served
• Is the Key
• Education
• Job Skills
• Sobriety
• Prison is Expensive
• Prison Removes the Offender From Job and Family
• Without Drug, Educational, Behavior Modification
Programming, Prison Does Little More Than Move an
Offender From Normal Society to a Society of Criminals
• Generally, Prison Should Be Reserved For Dangerous or
Habitual Offenders Who do not Respond to Other Strategies
• Reentry Programs Focus on the Need to Help
the Prisoner Rejoin Society
• Parole Revocation Decreases Significantly
With Passage of Time After Release
• Between 1 and 15 Months After Release The
Chance of Arrest Drops by 40%
• Reentry Programs are Usually Conducted By
Parole Boards or Departments of Corrections,
although Courts are Becoming More Active in
this Field
Good News about Drug Courts
Numerous studies show that:
• Drug court participation results in lower
recidivism rates (5 studies 8 – 26%)
• Drug courts result in substantial cost savings
(6 studies)
• Drug Courts are Evidence Based Treatment
Alternatives For Addicted Offenders
• Drug Courts Combine
•
• Treatment
• Judicial Supervision
• Behavioral Modification
• Rewards and Swift Certain Sanctions
Missouri Drug Courts Cost Substantially
Less Than Incarceration
Costs (per inmate per year)
Incarceration
Drug Court
$16,832
$3,000 - 5,000
Drug Courts Provide Savings Over
Probation
Case Study: St. Louis City Adult Felony Drug Court
– Initial cost = cost of probation + cost of treatment
– In two years: $2,615 net savings
– In four years: $7,707 net savings
For every $1 spent  $6.32 of savings
MO Recidivism Comparison
Recidivism Rates
(rearrest within two years)
• Prison
41.6%
• Drug Court Graduates 10%
(New JIS Tracking:
18-month Graduates 4.6%
18-month Terminations
15.2%)
• A real life example of recidivism was the 35
year old St. Joseph man arrested for drunk
driving June 16, 2010, just three hours after
he was released from prison.
• Other Evidenced Based
• Sentencing Alternatives
•
•
•
•
•
•
Adult Felony Drug Court
DWI Court
Family Drug Court
Veterans’ Court
Mental Health Court
Reintegration/Reentry Court
• All combine evidence based treatment with intense
supervision
• “I believe we can take an approach that is
both tough and smart…[T]here are thousands
of nonviolent offenders in the system whose
future we cannot ignore. Let’s focus more
resources on rehabilitating those offenders so
we can ultimately spend less money locking
them up again.” Gov. Rick Perry, Texas
• Requirements for Evidence Based Sentencing
Practices
•
•
•
•
Assessment Tool
Training
Data Collection
Evidence Based / Not Intuition Based
Decisions
The Bottom line
• The quality of justice is not measured by the length of
sentence.
• One size, one strategy, does not fit all offenders.
• Breaking the cycle of addiction and crime requires scientific
evidence based treatment and the development of job skills
and intense supervision, not always prison walls.
• Results matter. Cost matters.
SOURCES
NADCP
• NCSC
• PEW
• The Box Set paper by Roger Warren entitled, Evidence-Based Practice to
Reduce Recidivism: Implications for State Judiciaries;
• Curriculum materials for Evidence-Based Sentencing,
http://www.ncsconline.org/csi/education.html;
• Additional information about training in Evidence-Based Sentencing,
http://cjinstitute.org/about/services/trainings/; and
• Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument materials,
http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/corrections/riskAssessment/
• nadcp.org
EVIDENCE-BASED SENTENCING:
HOW IT WORKS
The Problem…..
• No money
– No sustainable state funding of probation
– Under-funding & large caseloads
– High recidivism & revocation rates
• Approximately 52,000 sent to prison
– 20,000 (40%) on revocations
– $1 Billion annual cost
– 70% commit crimes after release
The Challenge….
• Reduce recidivism where ever possible
• Lower state prison and parole costs
• Increase public protection through reduction
in recidivism
• Goal is to change anti-social behavior, not
temporary control while on probation
Purposes of Sentencing…
1. “Just Deserts:” punishment proportionate to
offense and culpability
2. Public Safety
– Rehabilitation
Risk Reduction
– Specific Deterrence
& Management
– Incapacitation/Control
– General Deterrence
3. Restitution/ Restoration of community
“Sentencing is a complex topic that needs to
be approached with humility, an open mind
and common sense.”
Hon. Michael A. Wolff
Judge, Supreme Court of
Missouri
What it is…..and what it is not…..
• EBP is …
– More information about offender
– One added tool to use among many
– Better management by probation
– Overall reduction in recidivism
• EBP is not …
– Telling judges how to sentence
– Replacing independent judgment
Where do the courts fit in?
• This is a reasoned, methodical attempt to
apply validated principles of case
management to the criminal justice system
• Judges are being asked to support probation
in its effort to implement EBP
• Judges are being asked, at very least, to do no
harm
What is EBP?
“[S]upervision policies, procedures, programs,
and practices demonstrated by scientific
research to reduce recidivism among
individuals under probation, parole or
postrelease supervision.”
P.C. § 1229(d)
• Professional practice supported by the best
research evidence:
– Rigorous evaluation (i.e., use of control
groups
– Replicated in multiple studies
– Systematic review (meta-analysis)
Where does it come from?
•
•
•
•
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Meta-analysis of 571 studies
“Cautious” approach – discounted results
Adult EB programs reduce recidivism by 1020%
• Moderate increase in use of EBP would avoid
two new prisons, save $2.1 billion, and reduce
crime rate by 8%
Principles of EBP…..
• Risk Principle (Who)
• Needs Principle (What Factors)
• Treatment Principle (What Works)
Risk Principle (Who)
• The level of supervision or services should be
matched to the risk level of the offender; i.e.,
higher risk offenders generally should receive
more intensive supervision and services
• “Risk” refers to the risk of re-offense, not the
relative seriousness of either the crime
committed or the potential re-offense
Potential Impact on Recidivism
Recidivism rates absent treatment
Likely recidivism with effective
correctional intervention
Travis Co., Texas:
Impact of Supervision by Risk
Risk Level
Low
Medium
High
Overall
% Rearrest
Pre-EBP
Post-EBP
1/06-6/06 7/07-10/07
N = 1287
N = 614
26%
26%
34%
29%
6%
13%
31%
24%
% Change
in Rate
-77%
-50%
-9%
-17%
Needs Principle (What Factors)
The targets for intervention should be those
offender characteristics that have the most
effect on the likelihood of re-offending.
Static: Unchanging factors from past
Dynamic: Changeable factors in future
Heart Attacks…
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Elevated LDL and low HDL
Smoking
Diabetes
Hypertension
Abdominal obesity
Psychosocial (stress or depression)
Failure to eat fruits and vegetables daily
Failure to exercise
Dynamic Risk Factors…
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Anti-social attitudes
Anti-social friends and peers
Anti-social personality pattern
Family and/or marital factors
Substance abuse
Education
Employment
Anti-social leisure activities
In light of what we know now…
“What is done [today ] in corrections
would be grounds for malpractice in
medicine”
(2002) Latessa, Cullen, Gendreau,
“Beyond Correctional Quackery…”
LOW RISK
MEDIUM RISK
HIGH RISK
Lowest reporting
requirements
Increased reporting
requirements
Highest reporting
requirements
No need for
intensive
discretionary
programs
Discretionary
Use of surveillance
programs depending programs, & most
on determination of intensive treatments
need
Caseload
500-1,000
Caseload
65-75
Caseload
10-15 Extremely
High Risk; 65-75 High
Risk
Actuarial Risk/Needs Assessment
•
•
•
•
•
•
Engine that drives EBP
Validation & reliability
Generalized v. specialized tools
Proprietary v. non-proprietary
Intended to inform judgment
Re-assessment with changes
Use of assessment…
• Helps identify appropriate level of supervision
and services
• Helps identify dynamic risk factors and
appropriate conditions of probation
• Helps determine amenability to probation
supervision and treatment
• Not to be used to determine the severity of
the penalty
Probation conditions
• Target most critical dynamic risk factors
– Treatment conditions – successfully
complete
– Monitoring/control conditions – drug tests,
EMP
• Framework for case plan
• Be realistic and flexible with plan
• Avoid plea bargaining specific conditions
Treatment Principle (What Works)
The most effective services in reducing
recidivism among higher risk offenders are
cognitive behavioral interventions based on
social learning principles.
Social Learning:
Behaviors Have Consequences
Positive
• Rewards
• Reinforcement
• Incentives
Negative
• Swift, certain, and
proportionate (fair)
• Severe sanctions
not necessary
What also works…
•
•
•
•
•
•
Role modeling
Demonstration
Role play
Feedback
Skill practice
Motivational interviewing
% Reduced Recidivism
Behavioral v. Non-Behavioral
K = 77
K= 297
What doesn’t work….
•
•
•
•
•
•
Shaming programs
Drug education programs
Prevention classes based on fear or emotion
Non-action oriented group counseling
Bibliotherapy
Freudian approaches
•
•
•
•
•
•
Vague, unstructured rehab programs
Self esteem programs
Non-skill based education programs
Scared Straight
Physical challenge programs/boot camps
Intensive supervision without treatment
Use of coercion….
• Coercion is extrinsic
• Can be effective in forcing entry into and
completing program
• Goal is to achieve intrinsic motivation
• Rarely productive to threaten, lecture, shame,
argue, or sympathize
• Procedural fairness promotes compliance
Probation violations…
• One size does not fit all violations
– Nature and severity of violation
– Extent of prior compliance
– Risk re-assessment
• Swift, certain and proportionate sanctions
• Graduated sanctions and services
• Incentives and reinforcement to avoid VOP’s
• Relapse is natural
• Administrative sanctions providing probation
with maximum flexibility
• Penal Code, § 1203.2(b)
– Def may agree to modification in writing
without court appearance
• How much risk should the community accept?
Proper Use of Assessments
• May use low-risk score to grant probation
• Should not use high-risk score to deny
probation
• May use dynamic risk factors in determining
whether to grant or deny probation
• All information should always be used along
with all other available sentencing information
But there still is no money!
• Will provide judges reliable and relevant
information for sentencing
• Principled way of making management
decisions – data to back up
• Builds data base of needs
• May identify programs and strategies that
don’t work
• Shift services to people most in need
• EBP did not create these issues; it only
exposed them and has offered a viable
solution
• …and it is the right thing to do