Transcript Evidence Based Practice to Reduce Recidivsm

Evidence-Based Sentencing
Practices
Judge Roger K. Warren (Ret.)
[email protected]
American Judges Association
Maui, Hawaii
September 9, 2008
1
Presentation Objectives


Understand the basic principles and
benefits of EBP
Apply principles of EBP to achieve more
effective sentencing practices
– Obtain the necessary offender information
– Impose effective probation conditions
– Support effective treatment programs
– Promote offender behavioral change
– Handle VOP’s effectively
2
True/False Quiz
1. The seriousness of the committing offense
is more important than the offender’s
personal characteristics in predicting the
likelihood of further crimes.
2. Jails and prisons are effective in changing
offender behavior if the conditions are severe
enough that offenders don’t want to return.
3. The manner in which court proceedings are
conducted is not a significant factor affecting
offender recidivism.
3
True/False Quiz (cont.)
4. It is not important that an offender be
“motivated” in order for treatment to be
successful.
5. Probation and parole officers will be more
effective if they have lower caseloads.
6. Programs like “Scared Straight” and Boot
Camp are particularly effective for youthful
offenders.
7. The extremely high risk offender needs
especially intensive treatment.
4
True/False Quiz (cont.)
8. It is better to invest in treatment of low
risk offenders than high risk offenders
because their criminal tendencies are less
hardened.
9. Most offenders don’t handle stress well,
so anxiety and stress reduction programs
like yoga and meditation are helpful in
reducing recidivism.
10. Intensive probation and parole supervision
tends to reduce recidivism better than regular
parole supervision.
5
Setting the Context
Why is EBP important?
 How does EBP fit into the overall
sentencing scheme
 Why at this time in our history
 How relevant is it to the current
challenges facing the courts
 How does it fit with contemporary
public attitudes towards the courts

6
Focus on Probation Cases




Up to 80% of felony defendants are
sentenced at local level
Nationally almost 60% have at least
one prior conviction
43% fail to successfully complete
probation
75% of prison commitments are on
non-violent offenses
7
Purposes of Sentencing
“The general purposes of sentencing are:
(i) to render sentences in all cases within a
range of severity proportionate to the gravity of
offenses;
(ii)…to achieve offender rehabilitation [risk
reduction], general deterrence, incapacitation of
dangerous offenders, [and] restoration of crime
victims and communities …, provided these goals
are pursued within the boundaries of
proportionality…;
(iii) to render sentences no more severe than
necessary to achieve the [above.]”
(ALI, Model Penal Code on Sentencing, Tent. Draft No.1, Section 1.02(2)(a) (2007))
8
State Sentencing Reform:
The Recent History

Pre-1975: the “Rehabilitative Ideal”

1975-2005: Determinate Sentencing
– Rising violent crime rate
– Disparities
– “Nothing works”
9
Sentencing Reform: The
Recent History (cont.)

Today
– Highest incarceration rates in the world
– High recidivism rates
– High costs
– Great disparities
– Diminishing benefit of incapacitation
– Same violent crime rate as mid-70’s
– We know “what works”
– Widespread corrections malpractice
10
NCSC Survey of State
Chief Justices (2006)
Top concerns of state trial judges
in felony cases:
1. High rates of recidivism
2. Ineffectiveness of traditional probation
supervision in reducing recidivism
3. Absence of effective community
corrections programs
4. Restrictions on judicial discretion that
limit ability of judges to sentence more
fairly and effectively
11
Public Opinion about Sentencing:
2006 NCSC Survey



Punishment and rehabilitation is not
an either/or proposition
Supportive of treatment in lieu of
incarceration for non-violent offenders
Judges should play a major role in
sentencing reform
12
Top Priority for Dealing
with Crime
PREVENTION, like youth
education programs
36%
REHABILITATION, like job
training/education for offenders
22%
PUNISHMENT, like longer
sentences and more prisons
19%
ENFORCEMENT, like more
police on the streets
20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
13
Attitudes about
Rehabilitation
Which statement best describes your own
views about efforts to rehabilitate offenders?
79%
Many can
turn their
lives
around
5%
Don't know
16%
Little can be
done
14
Attitudes about Prisons
Which would you most want your tax dollars spent
on: 1) building more prisons, or 2) funding
programs that help offenders find jobs or get
treatment?
Funding for jobs & treatment
76%
Building prisons
19%
DK/Ref 6%
15
Support for Alternative
Sentences in Non-Violent Cases
How frequently should alternatives to
prison be used in sentencing for nonviolent crimes?
37%
Sometimes
51%
Often
10%
Hardly ever
Don't know
2%
16
Support for Alternative Sentences
in Non-Violent Cases (cont.)
Percent favoring use of alternatives to prison
“often” for non-violent offenders:




Treatment for mentally ill offenders (65%)
Mandatory education/job training (63%)
Treatment/counseling for offenders under
25 (61%)
Treatment/counseling for drug offenders
(56%)
17
Judges’ Role in Efforts to
Improve Sentencing
What role would you like to see judges play
in efforts to improve sentencing?
No role
9%
Small role
22%
Big, not leading, role
47%
Leading role
19%
18
Evidence Based Practice
(EBP)


Professional practices supported by
the “best research evidence”
Best research evidence:
– Rigorous evaluation
– Multiple studies
– Systematic review (meta-analysis)
19
Principles of EBP



Risk Principle (Who)
Needs Principle (What)
Treatment & Responsivity
Principles (How & how much)
20
Risk Principle
(Who)



Do not target low risk offenders
Do not target extremely high risk
offenders
Do target medium to high risk
offenders
21
Potential Impact on
Recidivism
80
70
Recidivism Rate in
relation to R/A
scores
60
50
40
Likely recidivism
rate with most
effective
correctional
intervention
30
20
10
0
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
High
HighExtreme
High
Extreme
High
22
Needs Principle
(What)


Target criminogenic needs
Do not target non-criminogenic
needs
23
Criminogenic Needs







Anti-social attitudes
Anti-social friends and peers
Anti-social personality factors
Family and/or marital factors
Substance abuse
Education and employment
Anti-social activities
24
Non Criminogenic Needs
Anxiety/stress
 Low self esteem
 Intelligence
 Health needs
 Physical conditioning

25
Targeting Criminogenic Need
0.35
0.32
0.3
Reduction in
Recidivism
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
Increase in
Recidivism
0
-0.05
-0.01
Target 1-3 nonTarget 4-6
criminogenic needs criminogenic needs
Source: Gendreau P., French S.A., and A. Taylor (2002). What Works (What
26
Doesn’t Work) Revised 2002 Invited Submission to the International Community
Corrections Association Monograph Series Project
Risk/Needs Assessment




1st generation: subjective
professional judgment
2nd generation: actuarial, static risk
factors
3rd generation: actuarial, dynamic
risk factors
4th generation: recommend
interventions
27
Treatment Principle:
(How & how much)
What works

Social Learning Theory
– Sanctions and rewards
– Modeling/demonstration
– Skills practice

Cognitive-behavioral Programs
28
What Doesn’t Work





Punishment, sanctions, or
incarceration
Specific deterrence, or fear-based
programs (e.g. Scared Straight)
Physical challenge programs
Military models of discipline and
physical fitness (e.g. Boot Camps)
Intensive supervision without
treatment
29
Non-Behavioral
Approaches










Shaming programs
Drug education programs
Drug prevention classes focused on fear or
emotional appeal
Non skill-based education programs
Non-action oriented group counseling
Bibliotherapy
Freudian approaches
Talking cures
Vague, unstructured rehabilitation programs
Self-esteem programs
30
Meta-analysis Summary
Sanctions
Inapp
Tx
Low
Risk
Noncrim
Nonbehav
NonAppr-Tx
spec Tx
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
Recidivism Reduction
31
Treatment Principle:
what works?

Social Learning Theory
– Sanctions and rewards
– Modeling/demonstration
– Skills practice



Cognitive-behavioral Programs
Chronic-care Model
Responsivity Principle
32
Stages of Change
PERMANENT EXIT
Relapse
Maintenance
(Doing well
with support)
(Skills to maintain
support
with relapse)
Pre-Contemplation
Action
(Denial)
(Ready for
change)
TEMPORARY
EXIT
ENTER
HERE
Contemplation
(“Yes, but...”)
33
33
BY: Prochaska & Diclemente
Treatment Principle:
what works?

Social Learning Theory
– Sanctions and rewards
– Modeling/demonstration
– Skills practice




Cognitive-behavioral Programs
Chronic-care Model
Responsivity Principle
Motivation
34
Motivation Enhancement
Motivational Interviewing





Avoid argument, lecture, shaming
Listen empathetically
Develop discrepancy/dissonance
Support self-efficacy
Roll with resistance
35
Benefits of EBP





Reduce recidivism & crime
victimization
Reduce corrections costs
Reduce crime rates
Reduce public, family, & economic
costs associated with crime
Smarter, more positive approach
to public safety
36
Washington Public Policy
Institute Studies





Meta-analysis of 571 studies
“Cautious” approach
Adult EB programs reduce recidivism
10-20%
EB programs have benefit cost ratio of
about 2.5:1
Moderate increase in EBP would avoid
2 new prisons, save $2.1 billion, and
reduce crime rate by 8%.
37
Summary: Effective
EB Sentencing Practices
1.
2.
3.
4.
Avoid significant intervention with low
risk offenders.
Target moderate to high risk offenders.
Target criminogenic needs in setting
conditions of probation, and programs.
Assess offender risk factors through use
of actuarial risk/needs assessment tool
and professional judgment.
38
Summary: Effective
EB Sentencing Practices
5. Imposing additional conditions of probation
beyond those directly related to an offender’s
risks/needs only distracts and impedes the
offender and probation.
6. Appropriate response to a VOP depends on
the severity of the violation, extent of prior
compliance, and the offender’s level of risk.
7. Use cognitive behavioral programs rooted in
social learning theory. They are the most
effective at reducing recidivism.
39
Summary: Effective
EB Sentencing Practices
8. Offenders will tend to behave in ways that
result in the most rewards and fewest
punishments.
9. Rewards are more effective than sanctions.
Use both positive and negative reinforcement.
Respond to violations promptly and surely.
10. To the extent possible, involve the family
and community in the offender’s treatment.
40
Summary: Effective
EB Sentencing Practices
11. Treatment must be individually determined
because treatment must be matched to the
offender’s personal characteristics.
12. You can be an agent of positive change. Be
aware of the stages of change. Use motivational
interviewing techniques (reflective listening,
pointing out offender inconsistencies, reinforcing
positive behaviors, etc.). Avoid threatening,
lecturing, arguing, shaming, sympathizing. Your
actions are as important as your words.
41
Summary: Effective
EB Sentencing Practices
13. To achieve multiple sentencing objectives
(e.g., risk reduction, punishment, and
behavioral control), treatment provisions
must be successfully integrated with other
provisions of the sentence.
42
Evidence-Based Sentencing
Practices
Judge Roger K. Warren (Ret.)
[email protected]
American Judges Association
Maui, Hawaii
September 9, 2008
43