Successfully reported this slideshow.

2 what works

539 views

Published on

Armarillo TX Presentation

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

2 what works

  1. 1. What Works? Reducing Criminal Offending
  2. 2. Reasons for Incarceration <ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Punishment </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Justice for Victim </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Incapacitation </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Impact on Potential Offenders </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reduction of Recidivism </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Impact of More Severe Sanctions on Recidivism <ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Incarceration vs. Probation </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Intermediate Sanctions vs. Standard Supervision </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li> (Smith, 2002) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Characteristics of Studies <ul><li>117 Studies </li></ul><ul><li>N = 442,471 </li></ul><ul><li>(Smith, 2002) </li></ul>
  5. 5. Impact of Incarceration on Recidivism <ul><li>N = 268,806 </li></ul><ul><li>68% American Studies </li></ul><ul><li>No Change in Recidivism </li></ul><ul><li>or Slight Increase in Recidivism </li></ul><ul><li>(Smith, 2002) </li></ul>
  6. 6. High Quality vs. Low Quality Studies <ul><li>High Quality </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Random Assignment </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Comparison Group Designs </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Age </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Criminal History </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Antisocial Values </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(Smith, 2002) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Random Assignment Studies <ul><li>2 Studies </li></ul><ul><li>Incarceration Vs Community </li></ul><ul><li>Slight increases in recidivism </li></ul><ul><li> (Smith, 2002) </li></ul>
  8. 8. Intermediate Sanctions <ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Electronic Monitoring </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Fines </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Restitution </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Intensive Surveillance </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Scared Straight </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Drug Testing </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Boot camp </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(Smith, 2002) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Intermediate Sanctions vs. Standard Supervision <ul><li>N = 66,500 </li></ul><ul><li>American Studies 80% </li></ul><ul><li>Slight Decrease in Recidivism </li></ul><ul><li>Or No Difference </li></ul>
  10. 10. Boot Camps Vs. Restitution <ul><li>Scared Straight No Impact </li></ul><ul><li>Boot camps No Impact </li></ul><ul><li>Restitution 5% Decrease </li></ul><ul><li>(Latimer et al., 2001; MacKenzie et al., 2001) </li></ul>
  11. 11. Same Findings <ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Juveniles vs. Adults </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Men or Women (maybe) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>White or Minority Race (few studies) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Low and High Risk Offenders </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(Smith, 2002) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Women <ul><li>More Severe Punishment </li></ul><ul><li>May Increase Recidivism in Women More than Men </li></ul><ul><li> (Smith, 2002) </li></ul>
  13. 13. Exception <ul><li>Intensive Supervision plus treatment </li></ul><ul><li>Slight decrease in recidivism (10%) </li></ul><ul><li>(Smith, 2002) </li></ul>
  14. 14. Impact of Treatment Vs. Sanctions (Andrews, 1998)
  15. 15. Impact of Treatment Vs. Sanctions Young Offenders Dowden & Andrews, 1999
  16. 16. Impact of Appropriate Vs. Inappropriate Treatment (Andrews, 1998)
  17. 17. Type of Treatment Andrew, 1994
  18. 18. Type of Treatment & Young Offenders Dowden & Andrews, 1999
  19. 19. <ul><li>“ All meta-analyses on offender treatment have a positive mean effect size.” </li></ul><ul><li>(Losel, 1995) </li></ul>
  20. 20. Appropriate Treatment <ul><ul><li>Higher Risk More Intensive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Targets Criminogenic Needs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Uses Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Implement Treatment As Designed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Andrews, 1998) </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. Targeting Criminogenic Needs
  22. 22. Criminogenic Needs <ul><li>Criminogenic Non Criminogenic </li></ul><ul><li>Antisocial Attitudes Self-Esteem </li></ul><ul><li>Antisocial Friends Anxiety </li></ul><ul><li>Substance Abuse Depression </li></ul><ul><li>Impulsivity </li></ul>
  23. 23. Targeting Criminogenic Needs Gendreau, French & Taylor, 2002
  24. 24. Self Esteem Vs. Criminogenic Needs
  25. 25. What Works <ul><li>Higher Risk Offenders </li></ul><ul><li>At least 2 sessions per week </li></ul><ul><li>Smaller groups </li></ul><ul><li>Implementation Monitored </li></ul><ul><li>Staff Trained on Cognitive-Behavioral Tx </li></ul><ul><li>Higher Proportion of Treatment Completers </li></ul>
  26. 26. Programming That Doesn’t Work <ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Psychodynamic </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Non-directive/Client-centered </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Disease Model </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(Andrews, 1998) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  27. 27. Impact of Cognitive Self-Change Program <ul><li>Length New Accusations After Years </li></ul><ul><li>Of Time (Mo.) 1 2 3 </li></ul><ul><li>No treatment 49% 71% 77% </li></ul><ul><li>1 – 6 54% 67% 80% </li></ul><ul><li>7 + 25% 42% 46% </li></ul><ul><li>(Bush, 1995) </li></ul>
  28. 28. Impact of Cognitive Self-Change Program (Bush, 1995)
  29. 29. How Many Programs Are Appropriate? <ul><li>Correctional Program Assessment Inventory Scores (CPAI) </li></ul><ul><li>50 correctional programs </li></ul><ul><li>(Latessa & Holsinger, 1998) </li></ul>
  30. 30. How Many Programs Are Appropriate? (Latessa & Holsinger, 1998)
  31. 31. ATSA Collaborative Study <ul><li>N = 43 studies </li></ul><ul><li>All treated between 1965 – 1999 </li></ul><ul><li>80% treated after 1980 </li></ul><ul><li>9,316 subjects </li></ul><ul><li>23 Institutional programs </li></ul><ul><li>16 Community programs </li></ul><ul><li>3 both </li></ul>
  32. 32. ATSA Collaborative Study Recidivism Data Treated N = 5018 Untreated N = 4298 Odds Ratio All programs Sexual 12.3% 17.7% .81 General 28.7% 41.7% .56
  33. 33. Current vs Noncurrent <ul><li>Current means 1) Treatment still offered in 1999 </li></ul><ul><li>2) All Cognitive Behavioral since </li></ul><ul><li>1980 </li></ul><ul><li>Noncurrent had no impact on sexual or general </li></ul><ul><li>recidivism </li></ul>
  34. 34. ATSA Collaborative Study Recidivism Data Treated Untreated Odds Ratio Only current programs Sexual 9.9% 17.3% .60 General 32.3% 51.3% .57
  35. 35. Psychopathy: Treatment
  36. 36. <ul><li>Program for personality disordered offenders </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;Maxwell Jones&quot; Therapeutic Community </li></ul><ul><li>Minimum 2 yrs in program </li></ul><ul><li>Mean follow-up after release = 8 yrs, 4 months </li></ul><ul><li>Psychopaths defined by PCL-R score of 27 </li></ul><ul><li>PCL-R coded from files only (r = .96) </li></ul><ul><li>176 treated patients; 146 untreated patients </li></ul><ul><li>Mean time to failure = 47 months </li></ul><ul><li>(Rice, Harris, & Cormier, 1992) </li></ul>Psychopathy and Recidivism After Treatment
  37. 37. Psychopathy & Treatment <ul><li>Non Psychopaths </li></ul><ul><li>Treated 22% </li></ul><ul><li>Untreated 39% </li></ul><ul><li>(Harris, Rice et al., 1994) </li></ul>
  38. 38. Psychopathy & Treatment <ul><li>Psychopaths </li></ul><ul><li>Treated 77% </li></ul><ul><li>Untreated 55% </li></ul><ul><li>(Harris, Rice et al., 1994) </li></ul>
  39. 39. Psychopathy, Treatment, and Reconvictions in HMP Service <ul><li>Tx anger-management, social skills </li></ul><ul><li>24-month reconviction rate </li></ul><ul><li>( Hare, Clark, Grann, & Thornton, 2000) </li></ul>
  40. 40. Percent Reconvicted 2-Year Post-release Reconviction Rates in the English Prison Service Hare, Clark, Grann, & Thornton (2000)
  41. 41. Cost of Recidivism <ul><li>To Taxpayers </li></ul><ul><li>To Victims </li></ul>
  42. 42. Computing Cost of Recidivism <ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Police Investigation </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Adjudication </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Corrections </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Medical Care of Victims </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mental Health Care of Victims </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Property Damage </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reduced Future Earnings </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(Aos, 1999) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  43. 43. Computing Victim Cost of Recidivism <ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Medical Care </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mental Health Care </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Property Damage </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reduced Future Earnings </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Pain and Suffering </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Loss of Life </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(Aos, 1999) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  44. 44. Cost Effectiveness of Correctional Programming <ul><li>Every $1 Spent on Correctional Programming </li></ul><ul><li>Taxpayers Save $5 </li></ul><ul><li>Victims Save $7 </li></ul><ul><li>(Aos, 1999) </li></ul>
  45. 45. Cost Effectiveness of Vocational and Basic Education Programs <ul><li>For Every $1 Spent </li></ul><ul><li>Taxpayers save between $1.71 & $3.23 </li></ul><ul><li>(Aos et al., 1999) </li></ul>
  46. 46. Cost Effectiveness of Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Programs <ul><li>For Every $1 Spent </li></ul><ul><li>Taxpayers Save Between $2.54 and $11.48 </li></ul><ul><li> (Aos et al., 1999) </li></ul>
  47. 47. <ul><li>“ We found the largest and most consistent returns are for programs designed for juvenile offenders.” </li></ul><ul><li>(Aos et al., 1999, p. 6) </li></ul>
  48. 48. Cost Effectiveness of Programming for Juveniles <ul><li>For Every $1 Spent on Juvenile Programs </li></ul><ul><li>Tax Payers Save Between $7.62 & $31.4 </li></ul><ul><li>(Aos, 1999) </li></ul>
  49. 49. Cost/Benefit of Adolescent Non Offender Programs <ul><li>Program Taxpayers Taxpayers & </li></ul><ul><li> Alone Victims </li></ul><ul><li>Quantum $.09 $.13 </li></ul><ul><li>Big Brothers $1.30 $2.12 </li></ul><ul><li>(Aos, 1999) </li></ul>
  50. 50. Cost/Benefit of Adolescent Non Offender Programs <ul><li>Program Cost/ Effect </li></ul><ul><li>Participant Size </li></ul><ul><li>Quantum $18,292 -.42 </li></ul><ul><li>Big Brothers $1,009 -.05 </li></ul><ul><li>(Aos, 1999) </li></ul>
  51. 51. Cost/Benefit of Adolescent Supervision Programs <ul><li>Program Taxpayers Taxpayers & </li></ul><ul><li> Alone Victims </li></ul><ul><li>Diversion $7.62 $13.61 </li></ul><ul><li>Intensive </li></ul><ul><li>Probation .90 1.49 </li></ul><ul><li>Boot Camp .42 .26 </li></ul><ul><li>(Aos, 1999) </li></ul>
  52. 52. Cost/Benefit of Adolescent Treatment Programs <ul><li>Program Taxpayers Taxpayers & </li></ul><ul><li> Alone Victims </li></ul><ul><li>ARP $19.57 $31.40 </li></ul><ul><li>Multi-Systemic 8.38 13.45 </li></ul><ul><li>Functional Fam 6.85 10.99 </li></ul><ul><li>Multi Tx Foster 14.07 22.58 </li></ul>
  53. 53. Cost/Benefit of Adolescent Treatment Programs <ul><li>Program Cost/ Effect </li></ul><ul><li>Participant Size </li></ul><ul><li>Aggression </li></ul><ul><li>Replacement </li></ul><ul><li>Training $404 -.26 </li></ul><ul><li>Multi-Sys </li></ul><ul><li>Family Tx $4,540 -.68 </li></ul><ul><li>(Aos, 1999) </li></ul>
  54. 54. What Does It Take to Break Even <ul><li>Depends on the Cost </li></ul><ul><li>Percent Reduction to </li></ul><ul><li>Break Even </li></ul><ul><li>Aggression </li></ul><ul><li>Replacement </li></ul><ul><li>Training 1.4% </li></ul><ul><li>Multi-Systemic </li></ul><ul><li>Family Therapy 10.2% </li></ul>

×