Transcript CALRAPP PROJECT WORKSHOP Evidence

Mark Carey
The Carey Group
www.thecareygroup.com
[email protected]
651-226-4755
 What
is EBP and what are its
potential benefits?
 Why apply a risk assessment?
 What are the criminogenic
needs and how are they used?
 Which programs work?
 What should we stop doing
(never events)?
 What did the adult Probation
Chiefs decide and what are the
potential next steps if you move
forward?
© 2013 The Carey Group
-Treatment counselor
-Probation/parole officer
-Director of four county
Corrections agencies
-Deputy Commissioner, MN DOC
-Warden, women’s prison
-Consultant/trainer
What is EBP and What
are the Potential
Benefits?
Agenda item
© 2013 The Carey Group

Through a strategic method
of applying research to our
decisions

Goal is to increase the
likelihood that positive
results will occur and
reduce the number of
misapplications of good
intentions
© 2013 The Carey Group

Evidence based practices is the use of scientific research
to guide and inform efficient and effective justice
services.

Began in the medical field in the 1800’s, evidence based
practices are now used by all professions.

A growing body of research says we can make significant
improvements in outcomes if we use scientific evidence to guide
policy and practice
© 2013 The Carey Group
“Sentencing is a
complex
topic
“Sentencing
is athat
needs
to be
complex
topic
that
approached
with
needs to be approached
withhumility,
humility,an
anopen
open
mind
and
common
mind and common
sense.”
sense.”
Michael
A.Judge,
Wolff,
Michael
A. Wolff,
Judge,
Supreme Court
of Missouri
Supreme Court of
Missouri
From article “Evidence-Based Judicial
Discretion: Promoting Public Safety
through State Sentencing Reform,” The
Dwight D. Opperman Institute of
Judicial Administration, The Brennan
Center for Justice, New York University
School of Law; The 14th Annual Justice
William J. Brennan Jr. Lecture on State
Courts and Social Justice
© 2013 The Carey Group
 Public safety
 Risk
reduction
 Deter others
 Restoration
 Incapacitation
© 2013 The Carey Group
 Skepticism about
research is healthy
 Caution should be applied
“There are two
kinds of statistics,
the kind you look
up, and the kind
you make up.” Rex
Stout
© 2013 The Carey Group
“There are three
kinds of lies: lies,
damned lies, and
statistics.” Mark
Twain
“Figures don’t lie,
but liars figure.”
Source Unknown
Levels of Research Support
Gold Standard
Findings based on rigorous and methodologically sound research (either through
numerous single studies or meta-analysis); uses experimental/control research
design with controls for attrition; replicated in multiple sites; preponderance of
evidence supports similar conclusions
Silver Standard
Findings based on rigorous and methodologically sound research (either through
numerous single studies or meta-analysis); uses quasi-experimental control
research with appropriate statistical controls; replicated in multiple sites;
preponderance of evidence supports similar conclusions
Promising
Findings show promise but require more rigorous empirical study.. May have used
a matched comparison group without complete statistical controls or utilized
research based principles to develop the intervention but have not studied the
results sufficiently to have full confidence in expected outcomes.
Inconclusive
Studies have consistently shown conflicting findings (i.e., one study shows
something works while another study shows that it doesn’t).
Adapted from the following sources: National Institute of Corrections (2010). A Framework for Evidence-Based Decision Making in Local Criminal Justice
Systems, 3rd Edition. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections; Criminal Justice Institute (2004). Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in
Community Corrections: The Principles of Effective Intervention. National Institute of Corrections.
Status quo has not produced expected results
 Rearrest rates have remained almost unchanged
for thirty years
 EBP improves outcomes
 Reduces victimization
 Is cost effective


Range of savings from 4:1 to 10:1
Aos, Phipps, Barnoski, and Lieb, 1999
© 2013 The Carey Group
 Purpose of
this research was to help policy makers
identify EBP’s that deliver better outcomes per
dollar of taxpayer spending

Table shows benefit to taxpayer and the public in the
form of reduced crime, labor market and health care
benefits due to increased probability of high school
graduation (i.e., benefit to people who were not
victimized by the avoided crimes)
Aos, S., Lee, S., Drake, E., Pennucci, A.,Klima, T., Miller, M., Anderson, L., Mayfield, J., &
Burley, M. (2011). Return on investment: Evidence-based options to improve statewide
outcomes (Document No. 11-07-1201). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
© 2013 The Carey Group
Summary of Benefits Vs. Costs (2010 Dollars)
Program
Benefits Costs/Person
Net
$36,043
$1,476
$34,567
Functional Family Therapy
$37,739
$3,190
$34,549
Multi-D Treat. Foster Care
$40,787
$7,739
$33,048
Nurse Family Partnership
$30,325
$9,421
$20,904
Early Childhood Education
$26,480
$7,420
$19,060
Adult Int. Sup: Supervision +
Treatment
$17,521
-$7,712
$9,809
Juvenile Drug Court
$12,737
$3,024
$9,713
Adult Drug Courts
$11,750
$4,099
$7,651
-$556
-$4,050
-$4,606
Domestic Violence Treatment
-$3,724
-$1,335
-$5,059
Scared Straight Programs
-$6,031
$63
-$6,094
Aggression Repl. Training
Adult Int. Supervision (no Treatment)
© 2013 The Carey Group
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
We are giving too much attention
to the low risk and too little to
the high risk
Have not applied research
knowledge to practices or applied
them with fidelity
The system is not in alignment
Workloads are too high;
overwhelmed with conditions
Concerns around lawsuits and
public pressure (CYA)
We are focusing on the wrong
issues
© 2013 The Carey Group
Top Four Dynamic Risk
Factors
1.
2.
3.
4.
Other Risk Factors
1.
2.
3.
4.
Non-Criminogenic
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Family issues (lack of support
or accountability)
Leisure (lack of appropriate
recreational outlets)
Health issues (poor physical
health)
Self esteem (low)
Intelligence (low IQ)
Mental Health (poor mental
health and/or mental illness)
Substance abuse
Employment (lack of success
at work; little desire to work)
Personal distress (anxiety,
etc)
Skill Deficits or Temperament
(eg, poor impulse control,
poor problem solving)
Companions (hanging around
peers who get in trouble)
Education (lack of success at
school; little desire for school) Thinking/Beliefs (having
antisocial attitudes)
© 2013 The Carey Group
Top Four Dynamic Risk
Factors
1. Thinking/beliefs
2. Personality/behavior
3. Peer relations
4. Family Circumstances
Other Risk Factors
5.
6.
7.
8.
Non-Criminogenic
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Family issues (lack of support
or accountability)
Leisure (lack of appropriate
recreational outlets)
Health issues (poor physical
health)
Self esteem (low)
Intelligence (low IQ)
Mental Health (poor mental
health and/or mental illness)
Substance abuse
Employment (lack of success
at work; little desire to work)
Personal distress (anxiety,
etc)
Skill Deficits or Temperament
(eg, poor impulse control,
poor problem solving)
Companions (hanging around
peers who get in trouble)
Education (lack of success at
school; little desire for school) Thinking/Beliefs (having
antisocial attitudes)
© 2013 The Carey Group
Top Four Dynamic Risk
Factors
1. Thinking/beliefs
2. Personality/behavior
3. Peer relations
4. Family Circumstances
Other Risk Factors
Non-Criminogenic
5. Substance abuse
6. Education
7. Employment
8. Leisure/recreation
.
Family issues (lack of support
or accountability)
Leisure (lack of appropriate
recreational outlets)
Health issues (poor physical
health)
Self esteem (low)
Intelligence (low IQ)
Mental Health (poor mental
health and/or mental illness)
Substance abuse
Employment (lack of success
at work; little desire to work)
Personal distress (anxiety,
etc)
Skill Deficits or Temperament
(eg, poor impulse control,
poor problem solving)
Companions (hanging around
peers who get in trouble)
Education (lack of success at
school; little desire for school) Thinking/Beliefs (having
antisocial attitudes)
© 2013 The Carey Group
Top Four Dynamic Risk
Factors
1. Thinking/beliefs
2. Personality/behavior
3. Peer relations
4. Family Circumstances
Other Risk Factors
5. Substance abuse
6. Education
7. Employment
8. Leisure/recreation
.
Non-Criminogenic
1. Self esteem
2. Personal distress
3. Learning disability
4. Health issues
5. Mental health
Family issues (lack of support
or accountability)
Leisure (lack of appropriate
recreational outlets)
Health issues (poor physical
health)
Self esteem (low)
Intelligence (low IQ)
Mental Health (poor mental
health and/or mental illness)
Substance abuse
Employment (lack of success
at work; little desire to work)
Personal distress (anxiety,
etc)
Skill Deficits or Temperament
(eg, poor impulse control,
poor problem solving)
Companions (hanging around
peers who get in trouble)
Education (lack of success at
school; little desire for school) Thinking/Beliefs (having
antisocial attitudes)
© 2013 The Carey Group
Why Apply a Risk
Assessment?
Agenda item
© 2013 The Carey Group
 Actuarial
Risk Assessments provide a
professional, objective, and more accurate way
of determining risk to reoffend



Professional: a modern, progressive, most current
method of assessing that has met proper standards
Objective: uses an approach that removes too much
subjectivity that can reduce fairness and accuracy
Accurate: more effective at predicting reoffense than
professional judgment alone
Source: Grove, William and Meehl, Paul. Comparative Efficiency of Informal (Subjective Impressionistic)
and Formal (Mechanical, Algorithmic) Prediction Procedures: The Clinical-Statistical Controversy;
Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 1996, Vol. 2, No. 2, 293-323
Professional judgment alone
Use of actuarial tool
Use of actuarial tool with professional judgment
(Recidivism rate vs control group)
Impact of Treatment
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
Low
Risk
Low/
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Risk
High
Risk
Source: CHRISTOPHER T. LOWENKAMP, CHRISTOPHER AND EDWARD LATESSA, UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI, CENTER FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE
2013CThe
Carey GroupFACILITIES AND HALFWAY HOUSE PROGRAMS (2002).
RESEARCH, EVALUATION OF OHIO’S COMMUNITY B©ASED
ORRECTIONAL
20
Change in recidivism
10
0
-10
-20
Low risk
High risk
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
O'Donnell Baird et al, Andrews Andrews
et al, 1971
1979
et al, 1980 et al, 1987
© 2013 The Carey Group
 Low
risk when they do not have a history of
antisocial behavior; has supportive family; has
prosocial friends; engaged in positive activities
 When we pull them away from these positive
influences and mix them with others who may
influence them negatively we increase their risk
to reoffend
 They are self correcting
© 2013 The Carey Group
Recidivism rates absent treatment
Likely recidivism with most effective
(high fidelity) correctional intervention
Source: Composite of meta-analysis studies;
see National Center for State Courts EBP curriculum
 Actuarial
Risk Assessments provide a
professional, objective, and more accurate way
of determining risk to reoffend



Professional: a modern, progressive, most current
method of assessing that has met proper standards
Objective: uses an approach that removes too much
subjectivity that can reduce fairness and accuracy
Accurate: more effective at predicting reoffense than
professional judgment alone
Source: Grove, William and Meehl, Paul. Comparative Efficiency of Informal (Subjective Impressionistic) and
Formal (Mechanical, Algorithmic) Prediction Procedures: The Clinical-Statistical Controversy; Psychology,
Public Policy and Law, 1996, Vol. 2, No. 2, 293-323
© 2013 The Carey Group
 1,087 officers observed a
case vignette and
identified risk
 Then trained on the risk assessment tool and
assessed the case
Source: Training to See Risk: Measuring the Accuracy of Clinical and Actuarial Risk Assessments Among
Federal Probation Officers,by J. C. Oleson, Scott VanBenschoten, Charles Robinson, and Christopher
Lowenkamp,, Federal Probation, Volume 75, Number 2, pages 52-56, September 2011
© 2013 The Carey Group
© 2013 The Carey Group
© 2013 The Carey Group
© 2013 The Carey Group
 LSI-R
and the LS/CMI (MHS)
 Compas (Northpointe)
 CAIS (NCCD)
 MOST/OST (public domain)
 ORAS (public domain through U of C)
 SPIN (Orbis Partners)
 STR/ONG (based on Washington Risk Assessment)
 Understanding the
criminal mind and when
and why conventional
wisdom fails
 Published with
Ken
Robinson, Ed.D.
 January,
2003

NORPS: Normal, Ordinary, Responsible Person

SLICKS: Psychopath/Sociopath

SLUGS: “Chronic Loser”
 Reduce length of
reports for low risk offenders
 Divert low risk offenders or discharge early
 Increase frequency of supervision contacts with high
risk offenders
 Avoid mixing low and high risk offenders in programs
and reporting days
 Consider different reporting days/locations
 Match staff style to offender risk
© 2013 The Carey Group
What are the
criminogenic needs and
how are they used?
Agenda item
© 2013 The Carey Group
© 2013 The Carey Group
© 2013 The Carey Group
© 2013 The Carey Group
 Lack
of empathy
 Anger and hostility
 Poor problem solving
 Risk taking
 Impulsive
 Lack of focus
 Narcissistic
© 2013 The Carey Group
© 2013 The Carey Group
5
© 2013 The Carey Group
6
© 2013 The Carey Group
7
© 2013 The Carey Group
8
© 2013 The Carey Group
Recidivism Reductions as a Function of Targeting
Multiple Criminogenic vs. Non-Criminogenic Needs*
Better
outcomes
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
6
-20%
Poorer
outcomes
5
4
3
More criminogenic
than noncriminogenic needs
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
More noncriminogenic than
criminogenic needs
(Andrews, Dowden, & Gendreau, 1999; Dowden, 1998)
© 2013 The Carey Group
Low Risk
Offender
Social Problem
Offender
High Risk – “Last
Chance” Offender
Minimum
Supervision
Programs and
Progressive
Sanctions
Surveillance
Approach
Report on time, pay
fines and fees
Change behavior
Quick sanctioning
and revocation
Differentiated Supervision Strategies
© 2013 The Carey Group
Criminogenic SCS Classifications
Risk Score Results
SCS Score - Classification
Initial Risk
SIS
Low
SIT
ES
CC
Blue
Medium
Gold
High
Red
© 2013 The Carey Group
LS
Domains
Summary Evaluation Social Indicator
Not An Issue (NI)
Potential Concern (PC)
First time offender. Pro-social
Negative environmental influences,
peers etc.
Escalating Criminal
History
*Negative influences of peers/codefendants
*First arrest at age 12
Lengthy criminal history.
Entrenched criminal value system.
Generally positive and associations with
non-offenders
Occasional association with other
offenders
Gang member or associates with
other offenders/drug dealers.
Easily influenced
*Arrested with co-defendant’s
suspected of selling illegal drugs
No evidence of emotional instability or
assaultive behavior
Single prior episode of assaultive
behavior
Current or multiple episodes of
assaultive behavior
*Juvenile arrests (2) for Assault
None or Social.
Occasional abuse, some disruption of
functioning
Frequent abuse, serious disruption
No Current Use
Occasional abuse, some disruption of
functioning
Frequent abuse, serious disruption
*Instant offenses,
Possession of Marijuana
*Prior juvenile arrest for Possession
of Marijuana
*Tested positive for recent
marijuana use
No evidence of inappropriate sexual behavior
Current or past statutory offense
Current and/or multiple incidents,
which have occurred in the last 5
years
Criminal Thinking/Orientation
Peer Relations
Assaultive Behavior
Salient Problem (SP)
Alcohol Use
Drug Use
Sexual Behavior
© 2013 The Carey Group
© 2013 The Carey Group
Companions: (or Anti-Social Companions/Peers)*

The defendant acknowledged over the past year he did have friends and
acquaintances who were involved in the legal system. Since being charged with
the current offense, however, he stated he has not interacted with those people,
and only spends time with his wife and children. Due to the defendant not having
companions outside his immediate family, he may be considered socially isolated.
When questioned on this, the defendant agreed he believes he has isolated
himself since being charged in the current offense. (subtotal = 60%)
Emotional/Personal: (Anti-Social Personality Pattern or Temperament) *

The defendant reported current concerns regarding his state of mental health. He
indicated he may be struggling with depression and admitted he has felt suicidal;
he has not sought services for such. The defendant denied receiving any mental
health treatment services in the past. He indicated he is willing to participate in
an assessment and follow recommendations. (subtotal = 20%)
© 2013 The Carey Group

According to the Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI), the defendant scored as a maximum risk to recidivate,
however, he has a number of protective factors or strengths in his life at the present time. He reported
having stable housing in a safe neighborhood. He does not use alcohol excessively, nor is he using illegal
substances and reportedly, has not used methamphetamine since his release from the Department of
Corrections four years ago. His Parole Officer verified his sobriety while under her supervision. In addition,
even though the defendant has concerns regarding his current state of mental health, it does not appear to
have been a significant factor in his life prior to his accident in 2009. The defendant stated he is willing to
participate in mental health services.

The LSI identified a number of barriers which will need to be addressed in the defendant’s supervision case
planning to reduce his risk level. His criminal history reflects the need to develop non-criminal behavior in
high risk situations. The defendant is unemployed due to his current medical situation and therefore is
struggling financially. Also, he has not obtained a high school diploma or equivalent. The defendant admitted
to having familial and marital issues, and does not engage in organized pro-social leisure activities
consistently.

Based on the information contained in this report, the defendant appears to be an appropriate candidate for
probation supervision.
© 2013 The Carey Group
Which Programs Work
and Why?
Agenda item
© 2013 The Carey Group

Styles and modes of service must be matched to
the learning styles and abilities of the offender
© 2013 The Carey Group
5
 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
© 2013 The Carey Group
• 13 times more likely to score above
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
700 on SAT
Twice as likely to be mentally
retarded
3 times more likely to stutter
More susceptible to chronic
headaches
More susceptible to bed wetting
2.3 times more likely to be
psychologist
More likely to recall childhood
memories
Works out less often
4 times more likely to commit
suicide
© 2013 The Carey Group









72% more likely to develop lung cancer
Smiles more often
One twelfth to have group sex
2 times more likely to develop
Alzheimer’s
Speaks sooner, makes fewer speech
errors
Brain ages faster, more damaged by
aging
100 times more likely to be chess
grandmaster
3 times more likely to buy X rated
movies
5 times more likely to have had more
than 20 sex partners
© 2013 The Carey Group
 “Hurry
up,
we got to
get the hell
out of here”
© 2013 The Carey Group
Gender
Motivation
Intelligence and
Learning
Style
Age (Developmental)
Culture
Mental Health
© 2013 The Carey Group
Percent of reoffense
© 2013 The Carey Group
 “If
we adopt a one
size fits all we end
up with everyone
wearing a suit that
doesn’t fit”
© 2013 The Carey Group
Put unmotivated
high risk offender in
programs with the
motivated
Mix risk
levels in
programs
Mix gender
in treatment
programs
Use a one-sizefits-all approach
© 2013 The Carey Group
 On





the following table, select the interventions that
do not reduce recidivism (and can do harm)
those that modestly work
those that work best
Studies include juvenile and adult; results are similar. In only one
category do the studies only include juvenile studies (family)
Only more recent studies used (from 1990 to 2007)
Source: The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: A
Review of Systematic Reviews; Lipsey and Cullen, Annual
Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 2007. 3:297-320
© 2013 The Carey Group
Intervention
Do not reduce
recidivism
(and can do harm)
Boot Camps
Confinement
Cognitive Behavioral
Programming
Drug Courts
Drug Treatment
Education/Employment
Family Related
Intermediate Sanctions
Social Learning and
Behavioral Treatment
Sex Offender Treatment
© 2013 The Carey Group
Modestly work
(up to 24%
reduction)
Work best
(up to 60%
reduction)
Intervention
Do not reduce
recidivism
(and can do harm)
Boot Camps
+10% to 0
Confinement
Cognitive Behavioral
Programming
Drug Courts
Drug Treatment
Education/Employment
Family Related
Intermediate Sanctions
Social Learning and
Behavioral Treatment
Sex Offender Treatment
© 2013 The Carey Group
Modestly work
(up to 24%
reduction)
Work best
(up to 60%
reduction)
Intervention
Do not reduce
recidivism
(and can do harm)
Boot Camps
+10% to 0
Confinement
+14% to 0
Cognitive Behavioral
Programming
Drug Courts
Drug Treatment
Education/Employment
Family Related
Intermediate Sanctions
Social Learning and
Behavioral Treatment
Sex Offender Treatment
© 2013 The Carey Group
Modestly work
(up to 24%
reduction)
Work best
(up to 60%
reduction)
Intervention
Do not reduce
recidivism
(and can do harm)
Boot Camps
+10% to 0
Confinement
+14% to 0
Cognitive Behavioral
Programming
Modestly work
(up to 24%
reduction)
Work best
(up to 60%
reduction)
-4 to -60%
Drug Courts
Drug Treatment
Education/Employment
Family Related
Intermediate Sanctions
Social Learning and
Behavioral Treatment
Sex Offender Treatment
© 2013 The Carey Group
Intervention
Do not reduce
recidivism
(and can do harm)
Boot Camps
+10% to 0
Confinement
+14% to 0
Modestly work
(up to 24%
reduction)
Cognitive Behavioral
Programming
Work best
(up to 60%
reduction)
-4 to -60%
Drug Courts
-8 to -24%
Drug Treatment
Education/Employment
Family Related
Intermediate Sanctions
Social Learning and
Behavioral Treatment
Sex Offender Treatment
© 2013 The Carey Group
Intervention
Do not reduce
recidivism
(and can do harm)
Boot Camps
+10% to 0
Confinement
+14% to 0
Modestly work
(up to 24%
reduction)
Cognitive Behavioral
Programming
Work best
(up to 60%
reduction)
-4 to -60%
Drug Courts
-8 to -24%
Drug Treatment
-4 to -20%
Education/Employment
Family Related
Intermediate Sanctions
Social Learning and
Behavioral Treatment
Sex Offender Treatment
© 2013 The Carey Group
Intervention
Do not reduce
recidivism
(and can do harm)
Boot Camps
+10% to 0
Confinement
+14% to 0
Modestly work
(up to 24%
reduction)
Cognitive Behavioral
Programming
Work best
(up to 60%
reduction)
-4 to -60%
Drug Courts
-8 to -24%
Drug Treatment
-4 to -20%
Education/Employment
0 to -20%
Family Related
Intermediate Sanctions
Social Learning and
Behavioral Treatment
Sex Offender Treatment
© 2013 The Carey Group
Intervention
Do not reduce
recidivism
(and can do harm)
Boot Camps
+10% to 0
Confinement
+14% to 0
Modestly work
(up to 24%
reduction)
Cognitive Behavioral
Programming
Work best
(up to 60%
reduction)
-4 to -60%
Drug Courts
-8 to -24%
Drug Treatment
-4 to -20%
Education/Employment
0 to -20%
Family Related
-16 to -52%
Intermediate Sanctions
Social Learning and
Behavioral Treatment
Sex Offender Treatment
© 2013 The Carey Group
Intervention
Do not reduce
recidivism
(and can do harm)
Boot Camps
+10% to 0
Confinement
+14% to 0
Modestly work
(up to 24%
reduction)
Cognitive Behavioral
Programming
-4 to -60%
Drug Courts
-8 to -24%
Drug Treatment
-4 to -20%
Education/Employment
0 to -20%
Family Related
Intermediate Sanctions
Work best
(up to 60%
reduction)
-16 to -52%
+26% to -2
Social Learning and
Behavioral Treatment
Sex Offender Treatment
© 2013 The Carey Group
Intervention
Do not reduce
recidivism
(and can do harm)
Boot Camps
+10% to 0
Confinement
+14% to 0
Modestly work
(up to 24%
reduction)
Cognitive Behavioral
Programming
-4 to -60%
Drug Courts
-8 to -24%
Drug Treatment
-4 to -20%
Education/Employment
0 to -20%
Family Related
Intermediate Sanctions
Work best
(up to 60%
reduction)
-16 to -52%
+26% to -2
Social Learning and
Behavioral Treatment
-4 to -60%
Sex Offender Treatment
© 2013 The Carey Group
Intervention
Do not reduce
recidivism
(and can do harm)
Boot Camps
+10% to 0
Confinement
+14% to 0
Modestly work
(up to 24%
reduction)
Cognitive Behavioral
Programming
-4 to -60%
Drug Courts
-8 to -24%
Drug Treatment
-4 to -20%
Education/Employment
0 to -20%
Family Related
Intermediate Sanctions
Work best
(up to 60%
reduction)
-16 to -52%
+26% to -2
Social Learning and
Behavioral Treatment
-4 to -60%
Sex Offender Treatment
-12 to -46%
© 2013 The Carey Group
CRIMINAL SANCTIONS?
- .07 (30 tests)
 These findings are
strong and
consistent across multiple
studies and subject matter
© 2013 The Carey Group
0
-1
Recidivism
increase
by percent
over control
group
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
7-12 mos longer
13-24 mos longer
Over 24 mos longer
Source: Smith, Goggin, and Gendreau, 2002
© 2013 The Carey Group
INAPPROPRIATE TREATMENT?
- .06 (38 tests)
Potential Examples:
- One size fits all
- DV perpetrators all get same 52 week program
- All offenders with a drug history go to a program
- Placing anxiety disordered person in group sessions
- Placing learning disabled into programs that require
verbal or written acuity
The literature on responsivity is consistent on the importance of matching. However, the amount of evidence
on responsivity is lower than the risk and need principles. More studies are needed. Source: Andrews, D.A.
& Bonta, J. (2006) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (4th Ed.), Newark, NJ; Anderson.
© 2013 The Carey Group

ISP’S?
- .07 (47 tests)
 Studies on
ISP have yielded consistent results. ISP
without treatment provides a short term
suppression effect only. ISP with treatment can
yield positive long term results
Source: Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2006) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (4th Ed.), Newark, NJ; Anderson.
© 2013 The Carey Group
Shaming
programs
© 2013 The Carey Group
2
0
-2
-4
%
Recidivism
Increased
-6
-8
-10
-12
%
Drug
Testing
Restitu Elec
tion
Monit
0
-3
-3
Scared
Straight
-4
Boot
ISP Camps
-6
-11
Sources: Gendreau et al (2000). The Effects of Community Sanctions and Incarceration on Recidivism, FORUM; Aos et al (1999). The
Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime, Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
© 2013 The Carey Group
Drug
prevention
classes
focused on
fear or
emotional
appeal
Bibliotherapy
Non-action
oriented group
counseling
Drug
education
programs
Insight
programs
© 2013 The Carey Group
Military models
of discipline and
physical fitness:
boot camps
Nontherapeutic day
reporting
centers
Physical challenge
programs
© 2013 The Carey Group
Electronic
monitoring
Rewards and
Sanctions
Practice
Skills
Offender
Change
Case Planning
© 2013 The Carey Group
Professional
Alliance
What is the Potential?
APPROPRIATE TREATMENT
.30 (54 tests)
The literature varies considerably on effect size. The bottom line is that the research on appropriate
treatment consistently yields positive results, ranging from mild (7-10%) to significant (30+%).
The meta-analysis tends to focus on specific interventions such as CBT or incarceration as opposed
to system wide efforts. There are no significant studies on system wide reductions. To get a 30%
reduction across a system, it requires trained staff, system collaboration, quality assurance, and
adherence to the core ebp principles.
Source: Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2006) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (4th Ed.), Newark, NJ; Anderson.
© 2013 The Carey Group
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

© 2013 The Carey Group
 Group
of 6-10 youth
 Structured, manualized curriculum
 Address skills in major criminogenic
needs (thoughts/beliefs, peers,
personality)
 Trained facilitator
 Use of demonstration and practice
 Of sufficient length and intensity
© 2013 The Carey Group
Example: Tippecanoe
County, Indiana
(Probation plus T4C
compared to
Probation)
Recidivism rate by percentage
28-50% reduction in recidivism compared to traditional probation
For more information, see EPICS Curriculum: Lowenkamp and Latessa (2006)
© 2013 The Carey Group
Intervention Guidelines for Each Criminogenic Need
Criminogenic Need
Attitudes/Belief
Program/Intervention (examples)
Personality
Thinking for Change (CBT), Moral Reconation
Training (CBT), Reasoning and Rehabilitation
(CBT)
Thinking for Change (CBT), Carey Guides (AntiSocial Peers and Engaging Pro-Social Others)
Thinking for Change (CBT), CALM
Family Stressors
Parenting Wisely
Substance Abuse
Employment
Education
Leisure
Pathways (CBT)
Workforce Center referral
GED, Tutoring
YMCA/YWCA, Mentoring
Companions
© 2013 The Carey Group
Top Ten Never Events
Agenda item
© 2013 The Carey Group
MULTNOMAH COUNTY PROBATION RECIDIVISM
12 months
25.3%
22.3%
24 months
36 months
Linear (12 months)
Linear (24 months)
Linear (36 months)
25.0%
23.1%
23.0%
19.9%
18.5%
22.9%
22.5%
19.4%
19.3%
18.1%
17.5%
16.4%
15.9%
15.7%
14.8%
13.5%
13.0%
11.5%
11.7%
11.4%
10.9%
11.1%
10.5%
8.3%
8.6%
11.4%
8.9%
7.6%
ADMISSION COHORTS BY SIX MONTHS INTERVALS
2005/1st 2005/2nd 2006/1st 2006/2nd 2007/1st 2007/2nd 2008/1st 2008/2nd 2009/1st 2009/2nd 2010/1st 2010/2nd
Source: ©Multnomah
Department of Community Justice
2013 The Carey Group
Risk Level
Low
Medium
High
Overall
% Rearrest
Pre-TCIS
Post-TCIS
1/06-6/06 7/07-10/07
N = 1287
N = 614
26%
26%
34%
29%
6%
13%
31%
24%
© 2013 The Carey Group
% Change
in Rate
-77%
-50%
-9%
-17%
 Using evidence
based practices will
increase the odds of
a positive outcome;
it won’t guarantee it
© 2013 The Carey Group
 Similar
to the
medical field,
criminal justice
practitioners have
never events
 When
these never
events occur,
positive impact is
nullified, and in
many cases the risk
to reoffend actually
increases
© 2013 The Carey Group
 Over-responding
to
low risk offenders
© 2013 The Carey Group
 Lecturing,
blaming, shaming, arguing
© 2013 The Carey Group
 Mixing
low and high risk
© 2013 The Carey Group
 Overloading
with
too many
conditions,
especially
conditions that are
non-criminogenic
© 2013 The Carey Group
 Hamstringing
probation’s ability to apply
what works as risk and needs change
© 2013 The Carey Group
 Guess
on offender traits that are
criminogenic (use assessment tool)
© 2013 The Carey Group
 Send
most
offenders to the
same program
(one size fits all)
© 2013 The Carey Group
 Delay
violation responses
© 2013 The Carey Group
 Withhold
rewards and affirmations
© 2013 The Carey Group
 Use
nonevidence
based
programs
© 2013 The Carey Group
Next Steps
Agenda item
© 2013 The Carey Group
 Four
principles
1. The professional judgment of criminal justice system
decision makers is enhanced when informed by
evidence-based knowledge.
2. Every interaction within the criminal justice system offers
an opportunity to contribute to harm reduction.
3. Systems achieve better outcomes when they operate
collaboratively at the individual, agency, and system
levels.
4. The criminal justice system will continually learn and
improve when professionals make decisions based on
the collection, analysis, and use of data and information.
© 2013 The Carey Group
And, contact
The Carey
Group for
additional
information

Partner with
County Chief Adult Probation and Parole Officers Association
 Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission (JCJC)
 PCCD

 Annual
conference on Sept 16-17, 2013
 Made a commitment to move forward.
 Adopted the following next steps




Establish an Evidence Based Practice Committee
Inform stakeholders i.e., Court Administrators, PJ’s
and State Representatives on EBP
Possibly establish a workload formula for county
probation that is supported by the association
Consider supporting one or more validated
risk/need assessment tool as an association
© 2013 The Carey Group
Contact The Carey Group if
interested in this document
Mark Carey, [email protected] or 651-226-4755

The Campbell Collaboration - www.campbellcollaboration.org/crime_and_justice/

The Center for the Study of the Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado,
“Blueprints for Violence Prevention” - www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprint/

George Mason University’s Center for Evidence Based Crime Policy,
http://gunston.gmu.edu/cebcp/

SAMSHA’S (Substance Abuse and Metal Health Services Administration) National
Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP) www.nrepp.samhsa.gov

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs’ Crime Solutions.gov. www.crimesolutions.gov

Washington State Institute for Public Policy http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/

University of Cincinnati, The Corrections Institute
http://www.uc.edu/corrections.html

University of Maryland, Bureau of Government Research
http://www.igsr.umd.edu/index.php

Texas Christian University, Institute of Behavioral Research
http://www.ibr.tcu.edu/
© 2013 The Carey Group
© 2013 The Carey Group