Community Corrections Statewide
Training Conference
EBP and Community
Corrections
Outcomes
October 31, 2013
Kim English
Linda Harrison
Christine Adams
Peg Flick
Office of Research and Statistics, Division of Criminal Justice
Is Colorado Community
Corrections Evidence-Based?
Programs are evidence-based when they apply
the PRINCIPLES of EBP.
Are intermediate sanctions
evidence-based?
Many correctional intervention programs are
based on tradition, custom, & imitation rather
than scientific evidence of effectiveness.
The engine of EBP starts with ASSESSMENT of
an individual’s risks and criminogenic needs.
Ed Latessa, May 2013 Colorado Collaborative Justice Conference
Criminogenic Needs
Average Coefficients
Red
= .20 >
Orange = .10 >
Yellow
= .05 >
Antisocial Attitudes
HX Antisocial Behavior /Low Self-control
Antisocial Peers
Criminal Personality Makeup
Dysfunctional Family Relations
Substance Abuse
School/Work
Leisure/Recreation
4
Residential community corrections
(n=9443)
 50% have antisocial
attitudes
 40% have problems with
antisocial peers
 78% need substance abuse
treatment (50% received
substance abuse treatment)
 75% have emotional
problems
 35% have problems with
leisure time
Targeting Criminogenic Need: Results from Meta-Analyses
0.35
0.3
Reduction in
Recidivism
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
Increase in
Recidivism
0
-0.05 Target 1-3 more non-criminogenic
needs
Target at least 4-6 more
criminogenic needs
Source: Gendreau, P., French, S.A., and A.Taylor (2002). What Works (What Doesn’t Work) Revised 2002. Invited Submission to the International Community Corrections
Association Monograph Series Project
Recidivism Reductions as a Function of Targeting
Multiple Criminogenic vs. Non-Criminogenic Needs
Better 60%
outcomes
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Poorer 0%
outcomes
-10%
6
-20%
5
4
More criminogenic than
non-criminogenic needs
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
More non-criminogenic
than criminogenic needs
Andrews, Dowden, & Gendreau, 1999; Dowden, 1998
Evidence-based PRINCIPLES to reduce
recidivism
1. Assess each defendant’s actuarial risk and
criminogenic needs
2. Enhance intrinsic motivation
3. Target programming to criminogenic needs and the
highest risk offenders
4. Build staff skills to implement EBP
5. Deliver treatment programs using cognitive-based
strategies
6. Increase positive reinforcements to influence prosocial behavior
7. Engage ongoing support: involve family members
and community programs
8. Identify outcomes and measure progress
EBP: Staff Skills
To provide EBP that emphasizes cognitivebehavioral strategies….
• Staff must be well trained to understand
antisocial thinking, social learning, and
appropriate communication techniques.
• Skills must be taught to train offenders, and then
ROLE PLAYING and PRACTICING between
staff/clients is key.
• Staff must role model pro-social behavior.
• Staff should reward pro-social behavior—positive
reinforcement—at a 4:1 ratio.
EBP: More about staff skills
Mark Carey and Madeline Carter (2010). Coaching Packet: Shaping Offender Behavior. The Carey Group/Center for Effective Public Policy/Bureau of Justice Assistance.
EBP: Necessary staff skills…
Mark Carey and Madeline Carter (2010). Coaching Packet: Shaping Offender Behavior. The Carey Group/Center for Effective Public Policy/Bureau of Justice Assistance.
EBP: More about the RNR Principles
• Target Interventions
– Risk Principle - Prioritize supervision and treatment resources
for higher risk offenders.
– Need Principle - Target interventions to criminogenic needs.
– Responsivity Principle - Be responsive to temperament,
learning style, motivation, gender, age, and culture when
assigning to programs.
– Dosage - Structure 40% to 70% of high-risk offenders' time for 3
to 9 months.
• NEED 200+ HOURS of clinical services related to criminogenic needs
for high risk offenders!! High risk/High need = 300+ hours
• NEED about 100 hours for medium risk offenders (Latessa, May 2013)
– Treatment Principle - Integrate treatment into full
sentence/sanctions requirements.
Three Kinds of Responsivity
• Offender character traits
• Staff character traits
• Program components
Matching
is the key
Matching Staff and Client Traits
Match the characteristics of the
individual offender to the intervention
(treatment, program, supervision)
AND
Match the personnel delivering the
service to the offender
Responsivity Factors
• Offender Characteristics:
• Other Considerations:
– Motivation
– Anxiety
– Learning Style
– Depression
– Gender
– Mental Illness
– Age
– Intelligence
– Culture
Source: Mark Carey, The Carey Group
EBP: Effective programs have certain
characteristics
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Are based on research & sound theory
Have leadership
Assess offenders using risk & need assessment instruments
Target crime producing behaviors
Use effective treatment models
Vary treatment & services based on risk, needs, &
responsivity factors
Disrupt criminal networks
Have qualified, experienced, dedicated & educated staff
Provide aftercare
Evaluate what they do
Are stable & have sufficient resources & support
Ed Latessa, May 2013 Colorado Collaborative Justice Conference
EBP: We are assessing needs in Community Corrections
We are assessing needs in
Average LSI scores increasing…slightly over 10 years
Average Criminal History Scores Increasing
DCJ Criminal History Score
# of juvenile adjudications (.5) +
# juvenile placements in secure institutions (.75) +
# of prior adult felony convictions (1.0) +
# of prior adult parole revocations (.75) +
# of adult probation revocations (.75) = CH Raw Score
0=
.001 - 1.25 =
1.26 - 2.25 =
2.26 - 3.25 =
3.36 – high =
1
1
2
3
4
What are the outcomes of clients
in community corrections?
2013 Community Corrections
Outcome Study
• Clients terminated in FY 11 and FY 12
– May have terminated multiple times
• 5 placements analyzed
– Residential (9443)
– Residential Dual Diagnosis Treatment (RDDT)(429)
– Residential Therapeutic Community (TC) (576)
– IRT (431) (only successes in 90 day programs)
– Non Residential (NonRes) (1517)
Definition of Recidivism
• New misdemeanor or felony FILING
• Within one year of SUCCESSFUL discharge
from community corrections
• Includes district and county court data EXCEPT
it excludes Denver county court data
• Same definition used at least since 1998
Residential--Program Outcomes FY11-12
% of
population
Success
Escape
New
Crime
TV
1 year
recidivism
Diversion
41%
51%
15%
4%
30%
16%
Transition
59
63
11
3
23
18
Male
83%
57%
13%
3%
27%
18%
Female
17
63
13
3
22
11
22%
29%
7%
42%
29%
Age
18-20
3%
21-25
20
39
18
4
39
25
26-30
21
50
14
4
32
18
31-35
16
55
13
4
28
16
36-40
13
66
14
3
18
19
41+
27
66
10
2
22
11
Residential--Program Outcomes FY11-12
Education and outcome
% of
population
Success
Escape
New
Crime
TV
1 year
recidivism
Less than
HS
23%
48%
17%
4%
31%
23%
HS/GED
65
60
12
3
25
16
Some
college/
vocational
11
65
8
3
24
14
College
degree
2
70
8
1
21
3
Residential--Program Outcomes FY11-12
Employment at termination and outcome
% of
Success
population
Escape
New
Crime
TV
1 year
recidivism
Full time
63%
73%
7%
2%
17%
16%
Part time
9
46
14
4
36
18
Unemployed
26
34
26
5
45
25
Unemployable
/disability
2
70
8
2
20
6
Residential--Program Outcomes FY11-12
% of
population
Success
Escape
New
Crime
TV
1 year
recidivism
Mental
Health
Diagnosis
No
82%
62%
11%
3%
24%
17%
Yes
18
49
15
3
33
16
Low
8%
74%
6%
3%
18%
7%
Med
41
65
10
3
22
15
High
51
50
16
3
31
21
Low
20%
88%
2%
2%
8%
10%
Med
47
76
5
2
18
17
High
33
44
15
3
39
24
Intake LSI
6 Mo. LSI
Residential--Program Outcomes FY11-12
% of
population
Success
Escape
New
Crime
TV
1 year
recidivism
CH Score
0
6%
67%
9%
2%
23%
10%
1
8
64
8
3
25
22
2
11
60
12
3
26
15
3
11
60
11
4
26
16
4
64
56
14
4
27
19
Property
40%
53%
16%
4%
28%
17%
Violent
18
57
11
3
29
16
Drug
28
64
10
3
23
14
Other nv
10
62
13
4
21
26
Other
5
61
9
3
27
18
Crime
Client Outcomes and LSI Score Change FY11-FY12
LSI Change,
intake to 6
months
Average LSI
score at
INTAKE
% of
population
% Program
Success
1 Year Recidivism
FY11
9+ point
improvement
31.6
16%
81%
15%
1-8 points
28.4
53
76
15
No change
28.3
13
52
17
1-3 point
decline
28.2
11
46
17
4+ decline
25.0
8
35
16
Number of Treatment Types and Client
Outcomes (FY11-FY12)
# Treatment types
% Program Success % 1year Recidivism
(n=11,786)
(n=3386)
None (19%)
41%
19%
1-2
(43%)
59
17
3+
(38%)
66
14
Among those who scored HIGH on LSI (54%)
Among those who scored LOW on LSI (8%)
# Treatment
types
% Program
Success
(n=5855)
# Treatment
types
% Program
Success
(n=931)
None (18%)
34%
24%
None (18%)
60%
1-2
(40%)
53
20
1-2
(55%)
73
6
3+
(42%)
59
18
3+
(27%)
80
5
% 1year
Recidivism
(3386)
% 1year
Recidivism
(344)
10%
Residential: Services, program
outcome and recidivism, FY 11-FY12
Service received*
% of
population
receiving
service
Program success
1 year recidivism
Education
11
0
+2
Life Skills
24
+8
-3
Mental Health
17
+3
-2
Substance Abuse
53
+19
-2
SO treatment
3
+18
+1
Domestic Violence
4
+11
+2
Anger Management
7
+12
-1
Cog Restructuring
27
+16
-4
*Comparison between those who received this service and those who did not.
Residential Program Outcomes FY11-12
Recommended Substance Abuse Treatment Level
% of
population
Success
Escape
New
Crime
TV
1 year
recidivism
Diversion
Not matched
19%
56%
11%
4%
30%
20%
Matched
81
54
14
3
29
15
Not matched
20%
67%
9%
2%
22%
19%
Matched
80
66
9
3
22
17
Not matched
20%
62%
10%
3%
25%
20%
Matched
80
61
11
3
25
16
Transition
TOTAL
Residential Program Outcomes
% of
population
1 year
recidivism
RELEASED TO
Probation
2%
17%
DOC ISP/Parole
35
17
Non
residential
13
11
Other
49
n/a
What do we know about the
specialty programs?
FY11 and
FY12
Daily COST
Residential
(9443)
RDDT
(429)
TC
(576)
IRT*
(431)
Non
Residential
(1517)
$37.74
$70.76
$52.08
$55.50
$5.12
DIVERSION
Success
51%
32%**
59%
--
60%
Escape
15
19
17
--
3
4
1
1
--
5
30
48
23
--
31
Success
63%
58%*
60%
--
---
Escape
11
10
16
--
---
3
1
1
--
---
23
32
24
--
---
New crime
TV/Revo
TRANSITION
New crime
TV/Revo
*Only successful IRT cases were analyzed.
**Mesa County had a success rate of 63% for Diversion and 81% for Transition
1-yr Recidivism*: FY11 and FY12
Residential
(2687)
RDDT
(96)
TC
(172)
Non
Residential
(459)
Diversion
15.7%
16.7%
8.9%
12.4%
Transition
17.6%
13.6%
13.3%
----
10%
0%
0%
n/a
CH Score <1.25
*Defined as 1 year new filing rate for felony/misdemeanor/excludes Denver County Court. Note that
cases must have had 365 days at risk to be included in the recidivism analysis.
Residential
(9443)
RDDT
(429)
TC
(576)
IRT
(431)
8%
4%
13%
Non
Residential
(1517)
Most serious
offense
Nonviolent
10%
8%
Property/NV
40
39
37
36
38
Violent
18
21
14
9
12
Drug
28
27
41
35
38
Other
5
5
4
8
4
% LSI Intake
Low (1-18)
11%
<1%
0
<1%
11%
Med (19-28)
45
29
12
20
47
High (29-54)
43
70
88
80
42
Avg LSI at intake
28.4
(7.3)
33.1
(7.2)
36.5
(6.6)
31.2
(n/a)
26.8
(n/a)
(Avg CH Score raw)
Residential
(9443)
RDDT
(429)
TC
(576)
IRT
(431)
Non
Residential
(1517)
% with mental
health
diagnosis
18%
n/a
41%
25%
13%
% violent crime
18%
21%
14%
9%
12%
4 points
5 points
8.7 points
n/a
4 points
14%*
17%
7%
n/a
n/a
11%**
<1%
0%
<1%
11%
Improvement in
LSI score for
successes
% Low CH Score
<1.25 on CH Score
% Low LSI Score
*65% successfully completed community corrections; of those who complete, 10% recidivated in 1 year.
**72% successfully completed community corrections; of those who complete, 6% recidivated in 1 year.
Who Succeeds in Community Corrections?
Residential Community Corrections
(in order of importance)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Older age at entry
Lower LSI total score
Not African American
Transition status
Crime is a drug crime
Lower Criminal History Score
Having a HS diploma
Special analysis: IRT45 and IRT90
• We compared the outcomes of clients who successfully
completed IRT45 and IRT90.
• Sample: Clients with service start and end dates
between 7/1/2008 and 12/31/2011
• FINDINGS:
– Approximately 80% of the IRT clients were referred by DOC
– Men in IRT90 had higher LSI scores; Women in IRT 90 had
higher ASUS scores (compared to IRT45)
– Recidivism rates were the same at 1 year at about 24%
– Diversion clients recidivated at a rate of about 18%
– Men recidivated at a higher rate than women
Special analysis: Movement within
community corrections
• One-fifth of the population moves within community
corrections
• 16% go to Non-Res (diversion only)
• 36% are regressed back to Residential
• Regression from Non-Res back to a Residential
facility produced slightly better program outcomes
– 62% who were regressed from Non Res ultimately successfully
terminated
One client went back and
– This compares to 52% who were
forth between residential
never regressed
and non residential 11
times! Another did so 10
times (with a stint in IRT).
Successful terminations FY 2011-FY2012, One-year
recidivism rates for successful terminations FY 2011
90%
45
80%
40
70%
35
60%
30
50%
25
40%
20
30%
15
20%
10
10%
5
0%
0
Successful termination
Recidivated
Mean LSI
Recidivism is a felony/misdemeanor in district/county court 1 year after
successful program termination. Denver County Court data excluded.
Mean Criminal History Score
Thank you for your attention