This six hour curriculum was created by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) with
financial support from the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. It is an
updated and revised version of a model judicial education curriculum originally
created by the NCSC, the National Judicial College (NJC), and the Crime and Justice Institute
(CJI) with financial support from the Public Safety Performance Project of the Pew Center on
the States and the State Justice Institute. The views expressed herein are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Pew Center
on the States, or the State Justice Institute .
1
© National Center for State Courts
•In most states, our current sent/corrs. policies date back 30-35 years to 70’s & 80’s.
•These prevailing practices over past 30-35 years were originally fueled & have been sustained
in large part by great skepticism about our ability to reduce recidivism--change offender
behavior
•First enacted in mid-70’s and 80’s in wake of huge surge in violent crime rate
•‘60-’75: violent crime rate tripled; people angry, frustrated, and scared
•Nothing seemed to work;
•Invested in imprisonment and incapacitation rather than probation and treatment;
•Conventional wisdom that nothing works became a self-fulfilling prophecy
•Loss of confidence in probation; “probation is a joke”; unprecedented recidivism rates, esp. at
front-end of cj system;
•Today, 90% of state corrections funding is spent on prisons while up to 70% of the criminal
offenders are in the community.
2
© National Center for State Courts
These realities are not lost on judges
Results of 2006 survey of state chief justices
3
But, today, unlike 30 years ago, there is a voluminous body of rigorous research about what
does work to reduce recidivism.
Recent evidence establishes that many current sentencing and corrections practices are
actually harming the very offenders they were designed to help. Three of the most eminent
corrections researchers concluded five years ago “that what is done [today] in corrections
would be grounds for malpractice in medicine.” Edward J. Latessa, Francis T. Cullen, and Paul
Gendreau, Beyond Correctional Quackery: Professionalism and the Possibility of Effective
Treatment, 66 FED. PROBATION, Sept. 2002, at 43.
Today, a body of rigorous research has emerged providing judges, prosecutors, defenders,
and corrections officials with innovative suggestions on how they may do an even better job in
protecting public safety, reducing victimization, saving tax payer money, lowering crime rates,
and reducing the family breakdowns and other social and economic costs resulting from crime.
4
In the same 2006 survey state chief justices were asked to identify their top sentencing
reform objectives
In this course we are going to review these EBPs and learn what we can do as criminal justice
leaders to improve the effectiveness of our sentencing practices.
There are 6 general objectives for this curriculum listed on this and the next slide.
6
© National Center for State Courts
Continued from previous slide.
7
© National Center for State Courts
Participants will respond to 10 True-False questions designed to test their pre-program familiarity with
principles of EBP to reduce recidivism.
8
© National Center for State Courts
The concept of Evidence Based Practice (EBP) originated in the medical field and then spread
into mental health, psychology, and corrections.
EBP in corrections:
Those practices in the field of corrections that are proven by the best research evidence to best
balance the goal of risk reduction (reducing risk of offender recidivism ) with the goal of risk
management (managing or controlling the existing risk of re-offense).
Evidence-based sentencing practices refer to those sentencing practices, especially with
regard to offenders sentenced in the community (rather than to state prison), that are based on
principles of EBP in corrections.
Best research evidence:
Rigorous evaluation requires a control group or well matched sample; results must be found
across multiple studies not merely 1 or 2, typically in the form of “a study of studies” or “metaanalysis” that analyzes multiple studies, discounts the results for researcher bias and other
infirmities, and averages results across those multiple discounted studies (e.g., Washington
State Institute for Public Policy, Campbell Collaborative, etc.).
See Handout 1.1.
9
In this course we will discuss practical ways in which the research underlying evidence-based
corrections practices can be applied based on an offender's individual characteristics in order
to achieve the twin goals of best managing and/or controlling the risk that the offender will reoffend or cause further social harm while also reducing the offender's risk of recidivism over
time.
Our particular focus in this course is on the practical application of evidence-based corrections
practices (e.g. probation and treatment practices) to sentencing, especially of felony offenders.
10
© National Center for State Courts
The Washington State Institute of Public Policy (WSIPP) was created in 1983 by the Washington State
Legislature to carry out practical, non-partisan research—at legislative direction—on issues of importance
to Washington state.
Types of programs found to reduce recidivism include:
•Drug treatment in the community (9.3% reduction in recidivism)
•Adult drug courts (8-10% reduction in recidivism)
•Intensive probation supervision when combined with treatment (16.7%) (Reduced to 10% in subsequent
2012 WSIPP research—see slide 23)
Types of programs that failed to reduce recidivism include: adult boot camps, domestic violence education,
and life skills education.
To reach its bottom-line cost conclusions, WSIPP employed a complex cost benefit analysis: benefits were
estimated by calculating the value to both victims and taxpayers of “avoided crime” in those programs that
reduced recidivism. The avoided crime cost to taxpayers included factors such as the criminal justice
resources used in the investigation, prosecution, and incarceration of criminal offenders, but did not include
avoided social welfare costs. The avoided cost to victims included the monetary costs of crime victimization
as well as the quality of life costs as determined by a U.S. Department of Justice study. These benefits
were then compared to the participant cost of each of the programs.
Source: STEVE AOS, ET AL., WASHINGTON STATE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY, EVIDENCEBASED PUBLIC POLICY OPTIONS TO REDUCE FUTURE PRISON CONSTRUCTION, CRIMINAL
JUSTICE COSTS, AND CRIME RATES (Olympia, 2006). See also Handout 1.2.
WSIIP re-analyzed 545 studies in 2009 and reached similar results on the crime effect of the adult
programs. (Elizabeth K. Drake, Steve Aos, and Marna G. Miller, Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to
Reduce Crime and Criminal Justice Costs: Implications in Washington State (2009).
WSIIP has since focused its efforts on more sophisticated cost-benefit analysis of various adult, juvenile,
11
© National Center for State Courts
and prevention programs.
11
© National Center for State Courts
While the WSIPP study determined what categories of offender “programs” tend to reduce
recidivism, other studies found correlations between evidence-based probation supervision
practices and reduced recidivism. Jurisdictions that implemented such supervision practices in
their offender supervision systems have had success in reducing recidivism.
Maryland (an example of use of research evidence obtained through the use of a control
group)
Maryland ‘s model (using evidence-based principles) emphasized the use of a risk needs
assessment for offenders entering the program and assigned offenders to treatment and
supervision services based upon the assessment results. In this study, moderate and high risk
offenders were assigned to the PCS (Proactive Community Supervision) program with
caseloads of 55 or to a control group with caseloads of 100. During the observation period, the
number of arrests for new crimes and revocations filed were compared between the PCS
group and the non-PCS group.
The above chart shows that the PCS offender sample had a 28% reduction in the rate of
arrests for new criminal charges and a 12.5% reduction in revocations filed as compared to the
non-PCS sample.
Source: Faye Taxman, No Illusions: Offender and Organizational Change in Maryland’s
Proactive Community Supervision Efforts, 7 CRIMINOLOGY PUB. POL’Y 275-302 (2008).
12
© National Center for State Courts
EBS is based upon the research on what works to reduce recidivism, manage risk of reoffense,
and hold offenders accountable for their behavior under supervision.
13
EBS focuses only on the purposes of sentencing related to recidivism reduction and management.
Recidivism reduction is neither the only, nor perhaps even the most important, purpose of sentencing.
(Rehabilitation may be a poor descriptor because:
• it incorrectly suggests that most offenders were once pro-social or “habilitated” and need to be
restored to that pre-existing condition; and
• it doesn’t focus squarely on crime reduction as the objective.)
Broadly speaking, there are three purposes of sentencing in an individual case:
1.“Just deserts”: to punish in accord with the gravity of offense in light of the blameworthiness of the
defendant and the extent of injury and damage done; accountability for criminal conduct.
2.Public safety: utilitarian strategies to promote public safety: reduce recidivism and promote
accountability through rehabilitation and effective use of specific deterrence; prevent future crime by the
offender through incapacitation or lesser behavioral controls; or deter crime by others through general
deterrence, sending a message, etc.
3.Restitution/restoration of victim, community
See ALI Model Penal Code on Sentencing, Tentative Draft No. 1, Section 1.02 (2)(a) (2007).
Recidivism reduction is only one purpose of sentencing. Recidivism reduction and punishment should
not be viewed as an either/or proposition. Use of EBS practices designed to reduce recidivism must be
integrated with any other provisions of the sentence intended to carry out other applicable sentencing
purposes.
14
EBP & EBS build on the successful experience of many drug courts, drug treatment programs,
and problem-solving courts and take courts’ recidivism reduction efforts to the next level
because the underlying principles of effective sentencing and corrections are not restricted to
lower level drug cases but cut across the entire criminal caseload.
15
© National Center for State Courts
16
© National Center for State Courts
17
© National Center for State Courts
The principles of EBP are distilled from the research about what works to reduce recidivism.
Based on that research we can discern certain common threads or “principles” that account for
why some interventions are more effective than others in reducing recidivism (“Interventions”
refer to “planned activities with an offender for the purpose of reducing the risk of the offender’s
recidivism,” such as treatment programs, probation supervision strategies, and professional
interactions.) The principles of EBP suggest that effective interventions “target,” or focus their
efforts and resources, not on the nature of the offense committed, but on certain characteristics
of the individual offender: specifically the offender’s risk to reoffend and the offender’s
“criminogenic needs.” Then, for appropriate offenders, effective interventions “treat,” or address,
those characteristics in ways that are matched to the individual offender’s characteristics.
The 3 basic principles are referred to as:
• RISK: Who is the target of the intervention – focuses interventions on offenders of certain
risk levels
• NEEDS: What offender traits are focused on – focuses interventions on certain “dynamic” or
changeable risk factors or “criminogenic” needs of those offenders
• TREATMENT & RESPONSIVITY: How we address those traits – use behavioral approaches
and match the intervention to certain specific traits of the offender. The research literature
sometimes refers to the principles of “general responsivity” and “specific responsivity,” and
sometimes collapses these two principles into two aspects of a single principle of responsivity.
Definitions (a glossary of terms is also contained in the handout materials: Handout 1.3.)
Criminogenic: characteristics that are associated with the likelihood of future criminality
Responsivity: matching the characteristics of the intervention and provider to characteristics of
the individual offender
18
© National Center for State Courts
Reductions in recidivism increase with adherence to more of the core principles. If an
intervention targets only one principle (such as targeting the right risk level), only small to
modest reductions will result. The best results occur when all three principles are followed.
Outcomes refer to the extent (percentage points) by which recidivism rates are reduced.
This meta-analysis is based on 60 tests of effectiveness for interventions using all three
principles, 84 tests for two principles,106 tests for one principle, and 124 tests for interventions
not based on any of the principles.
Source: D.A. ANDREWS & JAMES BONTA, THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT
74 (4th ed., Anderson Publishing 2006).
19
© National Center for State Courts
Risk refers to the general risk of committing another offense, not the risk of committing a
violation of probation, risk of violence or dangerousness, or risk of committing a specific
kind of offense.
Distinguish between level of risk of re-offense and level of seriousness of an offense, e.g., a
low risk offender committing a high level (serious) crime, or high risk offender committing a
low level crime.
The basic concept here is we do not want to expend or waste resources on low risk
offenders who are not likely to re-offend in the first place, or on extremely high risk
offenders who are not amenable to treatment and are likely to re-offend no matter what we
do.
Although this sounds logical, in practice we tend to do exactly the opposite and favor the
provision of supervision and services to those we believe will tend to do well under
supervision-i.e., those low risk offenders who do not need it and in fact will not benefit from
it. It is important to focus interventions not on those who will likely do well under
supervision/treatment, but those most likely to re-offend unless we intervene successfully.
20
© National Center for State Courts
Composite of meta-analysis studies (2007):
This is a graphic illustrating the findings of several different studies and was initially prepared
by Mark Carey & reviewed by Ed Latessa to depict the composite results of those several
meta-analyses.
The green bars represent recidivism rates we would expect based on R/A (risk assessment)
scores from the most common R/A tool, the LSI-R, in the absence of treatment. The blue bars
show the actual recidivism rates after treatment based on principles of EBP.
Risk assessment refers to the “likelihood” or “risk” that an offender will commit another crime
based on use of certain risk assessment tools that we will discuss in some detail in a few
minutes.
NOTE: The extreme high risk bar showing an increase in recidivism is based on the
experience of most programs currently in place for that population that are inadequate in
intensity and length and which often target the wrong traits.
Used LSI scores as follows:
Low
Low medium
Medium
Medium High
High
High-Extreme High
Extreme High
0-10
11-19
20-23
24-27
28-31
32-35
36+
21
© National Center for State Courts
This slide shows the overall impact of EBP in a probation department when both supervision
and treatment are re-aligned with risk-level in accordance with the risk principle. Both cohorts
were followed for 1 year. Prior to EBP it was common practice in Travis County to provide the
same supervision for low risk and high risk probationers. Furthermore, low risk probationers
were more likely to be ordered to educational classes and treatment programs. This slide
shows that once you supervise low risk offenders appropriately, their recidivism rate drops
significantly. At the same time, treatment resources were re-directed towards the higher risk
offenders. No new treatment resources were yet available. Officers also began to provide more
meaningful supervision to higher risk individuals using motivational interviewing to engage
them in treatment. The data shows a significant reduction in recidivism for both medium and
high risk offenders.
22
© National Center for State Courts
A recent WSIPP meta-analysis of the research literature on the impact of EB probation and
parole supervision practices (behavioral management practices based on the RNR model) on
subsequent crime rates estimated a 16% average reduction over a long-term follow up period
of 15 years. “In fact,” WSIIP concluded, the 16% reduction in recidivism is among the largest
effects we have found in our review of evidence-based adult corrections programming.” E.K.
Drake, S. Aos, Confinement for Technical Violations of Community Supervision: Is There an
Effect on Felony Recidivism? (July 2012).
The same research also found that treatment-oriented intensive supervision programs (parole
or probation) reduced recidivism by an average of 10%. (The typical form of treatment involved
was either substance abuse or cognitive behavioral.)
23
© National Center for State Courts
THE RISK PRINCIPLE APPLIES IN OTHER CORRECTIONAL SETTINGS AS WELL.
SHOWN ABOVE: Rep. Governor John Kasich signing Ohio HB 86 in June 2011 (a bill
incorporating several EB provisions into Ohio’s sent and corrs system.) One section of the
bill reflects a major policy decision based on he Risk Principle: section 5120.111 of HB 86
required that the state department of corrections establish Ohio risk assessment-based
standards governing the suitability of community-based corrections programs for state
financial assistance. Those standards preclude state financial assistance for most low risk
and many medium risk offenders assigned to the residential programs (unless certain
medium risk offenders are committed upon revocation of probation.)
(The legislation was based on a 2002 study of 13,221 offenders in 37 Ohio Halfway Houses
and 15 Ohio Community Based Correctional Facilities (CBCFs) that compared recidivism
rates (defined as reincarceration rates as a result of new conviction or technical violation;
similar results for only those reconvicted) of offenders placed in residential facilities to those
of offenders not placed in residential facilities (control group). After two years, the reincarceration rate for the offenders in the residential facilities was (as expected) lower than
the control group (34% vs. 39%). Significantly, however, the difference between the reincarceration rates of the experimental group and the control group (the “treatment effect”)
varied widely depending on the offenders’ risk level. For high risk offenders, the reincarceration rate for the treatment group was 7.5% lower than the control group. For the
low risk offenders, the re-incarceration rate for the treatment group was 4.5% HIGHER than
the control group. In other words, placement in a residential facility actually increased the
re-incarceration rate for low risk offenders. (These results are despite the fact that many of
the facilities were very poor-performing.) High performing facilities that were effective in
reducing recidivism for high risk offenders often INCREASED recidivism among low risk
offenders. )
Source: CHRISTOPHER T. LOWENKAMP, AND EDWARD LATESSA, UNIVERSITY OF
CINCINNATI, CENTER FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESEARCH, EVALUATION OF OHIO’S
COMMUNITY BASED CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND HALFWAY HOUSE
PROGRAMS (2002).
24
© National Center for State Courts
A follow up study 8 years later confirmed these results and found even great
effects on successful program completers. Edward J. Latessa, Lori Lovins,
Paula Smith, Follow-up Evaluation of Ohio’s Community Based Correctional
Facility and Halfway House Programs—Outcome Study (February 2010).
24
© National Center for State Courts
25
© National Center for State Courts
Some human characteristics are criminogenic which means they are associated with the likelihood of
future criminality; a person having those characteristics is more likely to commit crimes than a person
not having those characteristics. Other characteristics are non-criminogenic, meaning they do not
affect the likelihood of committing a crime.
“Risk Factors:” those characteristics of an offender that are associated with the likelihood of
recidivism.
There are two types of risk factors:
•Static: characteristics of an offender that are associated with the likelihood of recidivism and that are
constant or historical and cannot be changed through intervention, factors such as: age, gender,
number of prior arrests, prior convictions, age at first arrest, and alcohol/ substance abuse history.
•Dynamic: characteristics of an offender that are associated with the likelihood of recidivism and that
are subject to change through appropriate intervention.
In order to reduce an individual’s likelihood of committing a crime, it is important to focus on those
characteristics that are associated with the likelihood of committing a crime (criminogenic) and that
are changeable (dynamic). Those characteristics are referred to as “dynamic risk factors” or
“criminogenic needs.”
26
© National Center for State Courts
Some criminogenic needs are more criminogenic than others, i.e., more highly predictive of the
likelihood of recidivism.
By analogy, there are some risk factors for heart attack that are more highly predictive of
having a heart attack than others.
The risk of a heart attack for individuals who had all of these factors, amazingly, was almost
130 times higher than for somebody with none of them. Eight factors predicted 90% of all heart
attacks. The first two of these risk factors, however, (bad lipid readings and smoking), predicted
2/3 of all heart attacks.
1. International study that studied the risk factors associated with heart attack among 15,000
heart attack patients from 52 countries.
2. Gathered data on all heart attacks
3.Compared to case-matched controls
Yusuf, et.al., INTERHEART STUDY, The Lancet, v. 364, issue 9438, pp. 937-952 (9/11/04)
27
© National Center for State Courts
Generally, the degree of correlation with likelihood of future crime through standard regression
analysis is as listed above. Certainly, though, the top four are more important than the lower four
criminogenic needs. See D. A. Andrews and Craig Dowden, The Risk–Need--Responsivity Model
of Assessment and Human Service in Prevention and Corrections: Crime-Prevention
Jurisprudence,” 49 CAN. J. CRIMINOLOGY & CRIM. JUST. 439-464 (2007).
Yet today we tend to focus resources below the line. The point is not that factors below the line
are unimportant, but only that factors above the line where we tend not to focus current resources
are even more important and must be addressed in the case of medium and high risk offenders in
order to obtain significant recidivism reduction effects.
Refer to Major risk/need (criminogenic) factors and associated dynamic needs in the handout
materials to assist with this slide: Handout 3.1.
Typically, it is the individual's pattern of dynamic risk factors that will lay the groundwork for the
type and intensity of interventions. High risk offenders typically have several dynamic risk both
above and below the line. A low risk offender, however, typically has an isolated treatment need
such as chemical dependency. The treatment modality and level of supervision would look very
different for these two persons in spite of the fact that they both have addictions.
28
© National Center for State Courts
This is a more detailed description of what is meant by number 3 on preceding slide: anti-social
personality pattern. (These features are similar to but not necessarily indicative of the DSM III
mental illness diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder.)
29
© National Center for State Courts
This chart shows the effectiveness of addressing criminogenic needs. It does not mean that
one should address all six criminogenic needs simultaneously –- in any individual case.
Source: D.A. ANDREWS & JAMES BONTA, THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT
74 (4th ed., Anderson Publishing 2006).
30
© National Center for State Courts
While it is generally unwise to expend resources on non-criminogenic needs, there are some
circumstances where it may be necessary to do so. For example, mental health may need to be
addressed in order to facilitate successful substance abuse treatment. However, one would not
expect that addressing MH, in itself, would reduce recidivism. Instead, MH is considered a
responsivity factor – which we will explain further in Unit 7.
Mental health
A 2006 study found that serious mental illness and substance abuse had little effect on future
criminality. The study concluded that: “Unless factors unique to serious mental illness can be
specifically associated with behavior leading to incarceration, the criminalization hypothesis
should be reconsidered in favor of more powerful risk factors for crime that are widespread in
social settings of persons with serious mental illness.” John Junginger, Ph.D., et al., Effects of
Serious Mental Illness and Substance Abuse on Criminal Offenses, 57 PSYCHIATRIC
SERVICES 879-882 (June 2006).
These results are similar to the 2008 work compiled by Skeem, et al. where they indicate that the
mentally ill offender is more likely to possess more of the eight criminogenic needs which could
be one of the reasons why so many mentally ill offenders are in the justice system. There is
evidence, however, that offenders with psychotic disorders are more likely to commit violent
crimes. See Jennifer L. Skeem and Jennifer Eno Louden, Toward Evidence-Based Practice for
Probationers and Parolees Mandated to Mental Health Treatment, 57 PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES
333-342 (Mar. 2006).
31
© National Center for State Courts
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
32
© National Center for State Courts
33
© National Center for State Courts
How to Determine Risk/Needs in Individual Cases?
• 1st generation relied on subjective or professional (clinical) judgment to assess risk and needs.
•2nd generation turned to actuarial R/A tools that predicted the likelihood of recidivism based on
certain static actuarial factors that could be measured: age, gender, prior convictions, age at first
offense, etc. These factors were proven through research to be positively associated with the
likelihood of recidivism. 2nd generation tools were at least 4-6 times more effective than professional
judgment alone in predicting recidivism. C.E. Goggin, Clinical Versus Actuarial Prediction: A MetaAnalysis (1994) (unpublished manuscript, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, New
Brunswick); D. A. Andrews and Craig Dowden, The Risk–Need--Responsivity Model of Assessment
and Human Service in Prevention and Corrections: Crime-Prevention Jurisprudence,” 49 CAN. J.
CRIMINOLOGY & CRIM. JUST. 439-464 (2007).
•3rd generation tools include an assessment of dynamic risk factors or criminogenic needs. 3rd
generation tools are not necessarily better than 2nd generation tools in predicting recidivism in the
absence of treatment, but, unlike 2nd generation tools, they provide guidance in reducing recidivism
by identifying criminogenic needs.
•Most recently, 4th generation tools…also incorporate recommended case management/supervision
plans or interventions.
34
© National Center for State Courts
•Use of an actuarial risk assessment tool is the engine that drives successful assessment,
intervention, management and programming.
•Actuarial risk assessment tools have been around since the 1970’s and used for risk classification
and management purposes. Risk/needs assessment tools didn’t begin to emerge until the 90’s and
reenergized the goal of risk reduction. The development of 3rd and 4th generation RNA tools is
perhaps the single most important factor driving contemporary focus on EB correctional interventions.
But, because use of these tools is relatively new, and because these tools are corrections tools, and
were not originally developed for sentencing purposes, it is important to discuss what they are and are
not.
• The critical feature of these 3rd and 4th generation tools is the realization and acknowledgment that
risk is dynamic (changing and changeable). Actuarial risk assessment scores, on the other hand, (like
actuarial risk scores underlying health, life, and motor vehicle insurance, for example) are static—
representing the statistical probability at a particular point in time, absent any intervention, and based
on aggregate data of offenders with similar characteristics, that the subject offender will reoffend. The
tools cannot distinguish between those at any current risk level who will and those who won’t
subsequently recidivate. In other words, they cannot predict whether the particular offender will or
won’t recidivate. That will depend on the offender’s future and changing circumstances and the
choices the offender makes in light of those circumstances.
But, importantly, what contemporary RNA tools can do is identify the specific dynamic risk factors
that do predict and influence whether the particular offender will reoffend. They identify the
appropriate targets for interventions which, if effective, will reduce the probability of recidivism. No
matter what the offender’s current risk score is, it is the offender’s particular dynamic risk factors that
must be properly addressed in order to reduce the odds, the likelihood, of recidivism. Re-assessment
(and possible modification of supervision/treatment requirements) following a significant treatment
success or failure, or major life-changing event, is therefore also important. (See slide 37)
•Use of R/A tools not intended to totally replace professional judgment, but to better inform it. On the
other hand, if R/A information is routinely ignored in practice, they are useless and implementation
lacks fidelity. Probation experts recommend that the frequency of professional override of actuarial
information should be less than 10% and that the grounds of the override should be recorded and
approved by a supervisor.
35
© National Center for State Courts
A recent study demonstrates how actuarial risk assessment is more accurate and more consistent,
and that clinical judgment tends to over-estimate risk leading to violations of the risk principle.
Over 1,000 (relatively well-educated and highly–skilled) federal probation officers were asked to
evaluate an offender’s risk level based upon a 24 minute video of a mock offender interview and
then again the next day after being trained on use of the newly validated federal Post-Conviction
Risk Assessment (PCRA) tool. Without benefit of the PCRA, as shown, 17% of officers identified
offender as high risk, 51% as moderate risk, 30% as low moderate, and 2% as low. Later, using the
PCRA, none assessed offender as high risk, 2% as moderate, 91% as low moderate, which was
the correct assessment based on the validated tool, and 7% as low.
See, Training to See Risk: Measuring the Accuracy of Clinical and Actuarial Risk Assessments
among Federal Probation Officers, 75 Fed. Prob. J. 52-58 (Sept. 2011)
(The research on federal probation officers is consistent with studies of decision-making and
inferences of risk in other settings. Decision-making research has clearly established that
judgments of risk are especially prone to the use of heuristics and bias. A series of groundbreaking studies on decisions involving risk was conducted by Amos Tversky and Daniel
Kahneman in the late 1960s and early 1970s and published in a book, now considered a classic:
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky, 1982). More
recent summaries of this and other research are provided in Thinking Fast and Slow (Kahneman,
2011) and Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (Gilovich, Griffing &
Kahneman, 2002). For a discussion of applications of this research to evidence-based practices,
see "Moving Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices Forward: A Practitioner's View" by Dr.
Geraldine Nagy published in the journal of Justice and Research Policy, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2013
(Stephen Haas, Editor))
36
•
•
•
•
•
•
Our focus is on general tools, although some tools target specific kinds of offenders or subsequent
offenses (e.g., sex, domestic violence, DUI).
Screening tools focusing on a few generally static risk factors are often used in the states to screen
out low-risk offenders and focus more intensive assessment resources on medium and high risk
offenders.
Some tools are proprietary (e.g. LSI-R, COMPAS) and others were developed by government
agencies and are therefore non-proprietary (ORAS, OST), although the accompanying
implementation software may be proprietary (ORAS).
Risk assessment tools must be validated for accuracy and ideally are validated on the population
on which they are being used. There is a necessity of training staff to gain inter-operator reliability
(i.e., two persons assessing the same individual should get the same result). Cost and time to use
the assessment tool are major considerations.
(In 2014, the NCSC will complete a BJA-funded project which examines and compares many of the
important features of six of the most-commonly used RNA tools.)
Risk is dynamic and should be periodically re-assessed to measure progress and when
circumstances change. Use of re-assessments is believed to significantly increase the ability to
accurately predict recidivism. See, e.g. Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, The Recent past and Near
Future of Risk and/or Need Assessment, 52 Crime and Delinquency 7, 16 (2006): “Based on the
available evidence, we anticipate reassessments will double, and, perhaps, triple the outcome
variance explained by intake assessments. More, important, with assessments of acute factors,
opportunities for timely preventive action are enhanced.”
37
© National Center for State Courts
This slide depicts the general relationship between risk assessment and the level of probation
reporting requirements, intensity of treatment conditions, and recommended probation caseload sizes.
This is a conceptual diagram. The specific case management plan would depend on the specific risk
level and criminogenic needs identified for that particular individual. The concept is that effective
assessments should “drive” the appropriate supervision practices, which then determine appropriate
caseload size.
The recommended caseload sizes are based on two sources: Bill Burrell, et. al., Caseload Standards
for Probation and Parole, American Probation and Parole Association (September 2006); Circuit Court
of Cook County Adult Probation Department Policy 09.16 for Standard, Non-Specialized Supervision.
The APPA standards recommend caseloads of 200, 50, 50, and 20 respectively (and countenance
administrative caseloads of up to 1,000 for very low risk offenders). Cook County identifies preferred
caseloads of 400, 80, 40, and 20 respectively.
The research and literature are clear that smaller caseloads alone do not result in reduced recidivism.
Like smaller classroom size in schools, smaller caseloads are a necessary but not sufficient condition
of effectiveness, i.e. reduced recidivism. See Burrell, above, and slide 64 below on the ineffectiveness
of intensive supervision programs in reducing recidivism.
What is ultimately critical is workload, not caseload, and how effectively the supervising probation
officer uses the time (s)he is in direct contact with the probationer. As with determining the need for
judicial resources, cases are not all alike and different kinds of cases present different workload
demands. Probation officers must have sufficient time for direct contact with the probationer to
address the relevant risk factors. Time-based workload studies support the approximate caseload
ratios described above. See following (Bonta) slide.
38
© National Center for State Courts
James Bonta and his colleagues audio-recorded Manitoba Province probation officer initial
interviews and interviews at 3 months and 6 months, with 154 probationers and coded the
number of minutes devoted to discussion of the dynamic risk factors as identified by a
validated actuarial risk needs assessment tool. They then compared that data with subsequent
recidivism rate data, adjusted for risk level, based on any new convictions incurred by the
probationers within an average of 3.3 years after initial probation intake. As indicated above,
the longer average amount of time spent by the PO in meetings with the probationer discussing
critical individual risk factors the lower the recidivism rates. The impact was even greater when
the PO focused on fewer more critical risk factors. Inversely, the amount of time spent
discussing the general conditions of probation, the higher the recidivism rates.
J. Bonta, et. al. , Exploring the Black Box of Community Supervision, Vol. 47(3), Journal of
Offender Rehabilitation, 248-270 (2008)
39
© National Center for State Courts
40
© National Center for State Courts
First (and only) case to reach state supreme court (IN) regarding proper use of RNA info at
sentencing.
41
See Handout 5.1.
“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Conference of Chief Justices and the
Conference of State Court Administrators:
Support the National Working Group’s recommendation that offender risk and needs
assessment information be available to inform judicial decisions regarding effective
management and reduction of the risk of offender recidivism; and
Endorse the guiding principles described in the National Working Group’s report as a
valuable tool for state courts in crafting policies and practices to incorporate offender risk
and needs assessment information in the sentencing process; and
Encourage state and local courts to review the guiding principles and work with their justice
system partners to incorporate risk and needs assessment information into the sentencing
process.” (August 3, 2011)
•At least 5 states have recently mandated inclusion of RNA info in PSR’s and its
consideration by the courts to reduce recidivism (KY, TN, CO, AZ, & IN)
•Courts in at least 12 other states (CA, IA, ID, IL, MA, MI, NE, OH, OR, TX, VA, & WI) are
also using RNA info
42
P. Casey, R. Warren, J. Elek, Using Risk and Needs Assessment Information at Sentencing:
Guidance for Courts from a National Working Group, National Center for State Courts (2011),
available at http://www.ncsc.org/sitecore/content/microsites/csi/home/Topics/Evidence-basedSentencing.aspx.
Three main purposes for use of RNA at Sentencing
First 3 of 9 Guiding principles focus on the purposes for which the courts should and should not
use RNA info.
43
© National Center for State Courts
4 key points
Low-risk: target for less intensive controls (e.g., probation vs prison; regular probation vs
intensive probation) and provide the least intensive treatment needed to meet the individual’s
needs.
Medium and high risk: good candidates for more intensive RR strategies.
Extremely high risk: may not be amenable, but may be on high surveillance probation b/c crime
doesn’t warrant prison.
If crime warrants but does not mandate prison then an amenability determination requires
qualitative assessment.
(In some states (e.g., OH, PA, WI) courts can identify offenders who are being sentenced to
prison whom the court believes are good candidates for risk reduction strategies and then
corrections officials administer RNA tools and prescribe appropriate programming which, upon
successful completion earns the offender an early discharge.)
Oregon’s recently-enacted JRI program allows judges to utilize RNA information to divert
presumptive prison cases under OR’s sentencing guidelines system to community corrections.
H.B.3194 (2013, Sections 52-54.
44
•Terms and conditions must be appropriate for the risk level and target the specific and most
critical dynamic risk factors
•Shorter terms & less intensive supervision & conditions on low-risk
•Treatment conditions and control conditions must target the specific and most critical dynamic
risk factors
•Judicial (and probation & other) interactions should also target the specific and most critical
dynamic risk factors
Avoid less relevant conditions
Be realistic
Provide flexibility to the PO
Not on slide but later we will discuss how RNA info is also important:
in informing appropriate referrals to collaborative courts
and in determining appropriate responses to violations
On Probation Conditions generally, see Handout 5.2.
45
© National Center for State Courts
The risk/needs assessment tools being discussed “were not developed or intended to
be used for the purpose of determining the severity of the criminal penalty or as a major
criterion for deciding whether an offender should be imprisoned.” (Email
correspondence of Roger Warren with Don Andrews and Steve Wormith, developers of
the LSI-R.)
See also, LSI-R Manual, Page 3, last paragraph:
“This instrument was designed to assist in the implementation of the least restrictive
and least onerous interpretation of criminal sanction, and to identify dynamic areas of
risk/needs that may be addressed by programming in order to reduce risk. This
instrument is not a comprehensive survey of mitigating and aggravating factors relevant
to criminal sanctioning and was never designed to assist in establishing the just
penalty.”
46
47
© National Center for State Courts
This slide is purposefully cluttered with bits and pieces of information, the same way many presentence reports (PSRs) are cluttered with bits of information that may or may not be relevant
to the sentencing issues before the judge. The problem with many of today’s full PSRs is that
they contain too much information, or too little relevant information, without any indication as to
how the information is relevant to the sentencing decision the court must make. They don’t
help the court focus on the critical dynamic risk factors in the case.
Sample PSRs incorporating RNA information are included as handouts:
Handout 5.3 (Coconino County, AZ)
Handout 5.4 (Yamhill County, OR)
Handout 5.5 (Travis County, TX)
48
© National Center for State Courts
49
© National Center for State Courts
Continuation from previous slide.
50
© National Center for State Courts
This unit covers the treatment principle. There are certain features that must be present in
order for treatment to be effective in reducing recidivism. It is important that courts understand
the key features so if they hear about programs that use other techniques they can insist on
seeing the evidence that these other programs work. Often, treatment programs sound good
but there is no empirical evidence to support their effectiveness in reducing recidivism. The key
features of effective programs and offender supervision should be clearly understood by all
referral sources--and the evidence of effectiveness should be compelling. In the absence of
compelling evidence of effectiveness, the program should, at best, be considered either as a
promising practice or an experimental practice. In either case the program should be evaluated
before the court bestows confidence in it.
51
© National Center for State Courts
Refer to the Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators,
Resolution 12 In Support of Sentencing Practices that Promote Public Safety and Reduce
Recidivism . A copy of this resolution, is located in the handout materials: Handout 6.1.
52
© National Center for State Courts
“Behavioral strategies”:
Under operant and social learning theory (e.g., B.F. Skinner) social behaviors are learned over
time through processes of social consequences, both positive and negative, carrots and sticks,
rewards and punishments; social consequences of past behaviors influence future social
behaviors: antecedents, behaviors, consequences (ABC’s).
Opportunities to shape offender behavior can occur in a variety of settings. In this field, the
word “intervention” refers to any activity designed to change offender behavior. The
interventions we are describing include not only supervision and treatment programs, but also,
for example, interactions with court officials and day-to-day contacts with probation officers. All
of these interactions provide opportunities to shape offender behavior.
53
© National Center for State Courts
•
•
•
•
•
•
Historically, in criminal justice we have responded to behavior almost exclusively with sanctions. With
EBP we have begun to focus upon how best to use both incentives and sanctions to achieve the best
results.
Both positive consequences and negative consequences (rewards and sanctions; carrots and sticks) are
important, but people respond better and maintain learned behaviors longer in response to carrots
(incentives) than sticks. For optimal learning, positive feedback should outweigh negative feedback at
least 4:1. (See next slide.)
See Francis T. Cullen, Rehabilitation and Treatment Programs, in CRIME: PUBLIC POLICIES FOR
CRIME CONTROL (James Q. Wilson & Joan Petersilia eds., 2d ed. 2004) 253–289; D.A. ANDREWS &
JAMES BONTA, THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT 355-356 (4th ed., Anderson Publishing
2006).
This is especially true with offenders. Offenders who have previously experienced a lot of punishment
tend to become somewhat conditioned to the effects of such punishment and dismissive-tending to
blame others or not take personal responsibility. Sanctions can be effective in extinguishing a behavior,
but aren’t effective in teaching a new behavior. Offenders tend to substitute one unacceptable behavior
for another. Positive affirmations are intrinsically rewarding, resulting in a greater tendency to accept
them and desire to repeat the experience. We tend to undervalue the effectiveness of positive
consequences as a means of promoting positive behavior change on the part of offenders.
Withdrawal of a control or sanction (e.g., relaxation of reporting or monitoring requirements) as
reinforcement or reward for positive behavior is referred to by social scientists as “negative
reinforcement” because removing the control/sanction creates a positive consequence for the individual.
Removing sanctions as a response to positive behavior can be more effective in changing behavior than
the threat of imposing future sanctions (e.g., tightening reporting requirements) for improper behavior
that create a negative consequence for the individual.
Consequences for anti-social behavior must be swift and certain, but need not be severe. Failure to
sanction misbehavior is an implicit approval of bad behavior. But if offenders view the sanction as
excessive or unfair it leads to anger, hostility, or withdrawal which is counter-productive. Refer to “HOPE
Probation” materials in the handout materials (Handout 6.2) to demonstrate the effectiveness of using
swift, certain, and moderate sanctions especially when sanctions are used as part of a behavioral
change strategy.
Not all people respond the same to a given consequence. Therefore, consequences need to be
individualized. Many higher risk offenders choose jail or prison over community supervision because
54
© National Center for State Courts
they view it as less onerous than having to deal with treatment and supervision
conditions.
54
© National Center for State Courts
Wyoming Department of Corrections ISP Program
Studied 283 offenders using an experimental and control group
Conclusions: The frequent and consistent use of sanctions improved probation success. The frequent and
consistent use of rewards in addition to sanctions produced even greater probation success. The use of
rewards in proportionally higher numbers than sanctions produced the best results. Eric Woodahl, Brett
Garland, Scott Culhane, William McCarty, “Utilizing Behavioral Interventions to Improve Supervision
Outcomes in Community-Based Corrections”; Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2011 38:386,
Abstract:”The number of offenders supervised in the community has grown significantly over the past few
decades, whereas successful completions of probation and parole terms have been declining during the same
time period. The current study examines the impact of rewards and sanctions on offenders in an Intensive
Supervision Program (ISP). Data were collected on a random sample of 283 offenders who participated in an
ISP between 2000 and 2003. Agency records, including supervision notes, violation reports, and other
offender-related correspondence, were used to track offenders’ sanction and reward histories during their
participation in the program. Controlling for a number of variables, the study found that the use of both
sanctions and rewards led to higher success rates. Administering rewards in proportionally higher numbers
than sanctions produced the best results, especially when a ratio of four or more rewards for every sanction
was achieved. Correctional administrators are encouraged to identify ideological obstacles that may impede
the application of behavioral techniques and to carefully train and guide line staff in the use of sanctions and
rewards.”
This research is consistent with other research finding that a “balanced” approach to parole/probation
supervision is more effective in reducing the incidence of re-arrest and revocations than either a “law
enforcement” type approach at one extreme or a “social worker” type approach at the other. A law
enforcement approach results in a greater number of found technical violations, but also in higher re-arrest
and revocation results as well. A social worker approach results in fewer technical violations but higher
recidivism and revocation rates than the balanced approach. See, e.g., Paparozzi & Gendreau, “An Intensive
Supervision Program that Worked: Service Delivery, Professional Orientation, and Organizational
Supportiveness,” 85:4 The Prison Journal 445; C. Klockars, A Theory of Probation Supervision, Journal of
Criminal law, Criminology, and Police Science, 63(4),550-557.
55
Behavioral strategies also involve skill-building. Offenders must have the ability to do the right
thing; judges cannot merely scare, punish, educate or challenge offenders into doing the right
thing. Some offenders do not understand how to accomplish basic tasks such as setting an alarm
clock to make sure they get up on time for a meeting with their parole officer. Offenders can be
taught these skills through:
Modeling. Offenders are more likely to learn from someone when they relate to and respect the
person. When the person models the expected behavior, such modeling has a much larger
impact on the offender than when done by someone else.
Demonstration. When staff demonstrates appropriate behavior, greater learning occurs then
when it is “just talk.” When the offender then demonstrates the same behavior, even more
learning occurs.
Role-Playing. To demonstrate real life situations, practitioners must be prepared to role play by
setting-up opportunities for practice—both in group settings and in the community.
Feedback. Feedback should be immediate, with corrective coaching provided. (See for
example, D.A. ANDREWS & JAMES BONTA, THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT
351-354 (4th ed., Anderson Publishing 2006).)
Skill Practice See skill building video
56
© National Center for State Courts
This meta-analysis, based on 374 tests (“k” in the chart) of the effects of judicial and
correctional interventions on recidivism, shows nearly a six-fold reduction in recidivism when a
behavioral approach is used. (The authors define behavioral approaches as including
“behavioral/social learning/cognitive behavioral” approaches.) A behavioral approach requires
offenders to practice the skills they acquire in treatment and relies on strategies such as
modeling/demonstrating a skill, reinforcement for appropriate behavior, role playing, graduated
practice of skills, and extinction of inappropriate behavior.
Source: D.A. ANDREWS & JAMES BONTA, THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT,
4TH ED. 337 (Anderson Publishing, 2006).
57
© National Center for State Courts
In implementing behavioral approaches to changing offender behaviors one must also address
the beliefs and attitudes that underlie those behaviors.
This schematic demonstrates the issue. The behavior is the visible part that all can see, but
underneath that behavior are thoughts and feelings of which others and even the offender may
or may not be aware until after the behavior occurs. Beneath the surface is an underlying
cognitive structure or belief system that lays even deeper in the subconscious.
58
© National Center for State Courts
Source: C. T. Lowenkamp et al., A Quasi-experimental Evaluation of Thinking for a Change: A “Realworld” Application, 36 CRIM. JUST. BEHAV. 137-146 (2009). The recidivism rates are adjusted for risk,
gender, race, age, and time at risk. An unpublished version of this study showed that those who
successfully completed the program recidivated at a rate one half of the recidivism rate of those on
probation only, reinforcing the importance of keeping offenders in treatment and encouraging successful
completion. “Improving the Effectiveness of Correctional Programs Through Research,” PowerPoint
presentation by Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D. , Center for Criminal Justice Research, Division of Criminal
Justice, University of Cincinnati , available at
http://www.drc.ohio.gov/web/iej_files/200802_Speaker_Latessa.pdf. .
This graph depicts the results of a study in Tippecanoe County, Indiana. The jurisdiction implemented a
cognitive program entitled Thinking for a Change. The T4C program consists of 22 lesson plans taught
over 32 hours and delivered across 11 weeks. It was developed by and is available for free from the
National Institute of Corrections.
Cognitive programs by themselves will produce a modest effect size (a drop in recidivism by 5-10%).
However, programs that use a cognitive-behavioral approach, like T4C, will sharply increase the effect
size, by almost 30%. Changing only the way an offender thinks is not nearly as effective as also
providing the skills and abilities that allow the offender to behave differently.
Analyses show that cognitive-behavioral programs are more effective than behavioral programs alone.
For example, Milkman & Wanberg (2007, p. 36) reviewed the literature on cognitive-behavioral programs
and reported:
A meta-analysis of 69 studies covering both behavioral and cognitive-behavioral programs
determined that the cognitive-behavioral programs were more effective in reducing recidivism than the
behavioral programs (Pearson et al., 2002). The mean reduction in recidivism was about 30 percent for
treated offenders. Other meta-analyses of correctional treatment concluded that cognitive-behavioral
methods are critical aspects of effective correctional treatment (Andrews et al., 1990; Losel, 1995). Yet
another study similarly determined that the most effective interventions are those that use cognitivebehavioral techniques to improve cognitive functioning (Gendreau and Andrews, 1990).
Source: H. MILKMAN & K. WANBERG, COGNITIVE-BEHAVIORAL TREATMENT: A REVIEW AND
DISCUSSION FOR CORRECTIONS PROFESSIONALS (National Institute of Corrections 2007)
(Accession Number 021657).
59
© National Center for State Courts
59
© National Center for State Courts
•
•
•
•
•
•
Most medium and high risk offenders respond best to a cognitive behavioral program. It takes a cluster
of criminogenic needs for an individual to become higher risk. A cognitive behavioral approach should be
used to address one or more of these needs (especially those in the “big four” most influential needs).
Cognitive behavioral programs address the offender’s underlying thinking and attitudes and interrupt
underlying anti-social thinking patterns (cognitive restructuring). If the offender believes, for example, that
everyone does crime but that not all get caught, he/she justifies anti-social acts. As another example, if
offenders interpret normal social interactions as threatening, they are more likely to respond in defiance
or self defense. Restructuring involves an examination of the beliefs that underlie the behavior and a
reconsideration of those beliefs.
• Cognitive programs provide information and assistance to disrupt beliefs that are generally
accepted by offenders and often unconscious. They may have learned these beliefs early in life and think
of them as normal and functional. In reality, they cause emotions and behaviors that lead to trouble. A
male offender who is accidentally bumped by another person in a crowded space may jump to the
conclusion that the other person did it on purpose and is “disrespecting” him. He may think he has to
defend his honor. These thoughts can easily lead to anti-social actions (e.g., an angry response leading
to assaultive behavior). Cognitive programs are designed to help the offender pause and reflect on the
incident, replace the thoughts that led to the anti-social behavior with “replacement thoughts” that lead to
alternative more pro-social behaviors in response to the situation.
Cognitive programs were initially delivered in small group settings of 8-12 offenders. Such
programs are run by a trained facilitator who use a manual that has specific modules that are followed in
a particular sequence. The lessons require the offender to describe his/her beliefs and thoughts and the
beliefs are examined by other group members. The differences between what the offender wants (e.g., a
home, job, and people allowing the offender to act independently) and the consequences of the
offender’s behavior are identified, and offenders learn how to create replacement thoughts that will lead
to other behaviors and more favorable outcomes.
Increasingly, supervision officers and treatment providers are being individually trained in the use of
CBT in carrying out their respective responsibilities. (E.g., EPICS, STICS, Carey Guides)
Once the offender is ready, certain skills, such as how to resolve a conflict peacefully, are
taught to help the offender respond appropriately to problem situations that can lead to crime.
Cognitive skills consist of a set of thinking skills that can help an individual cope with disappointment and
problems without getting in trouble. They can include conflict resolution, anger management, problem
solving, developing creative solutions, asking for help, and general life skills.
60
© National Center for State Courts
15 MINUTE VIDEO + 10 MINUTES DISCUSSION
61
© National Center for State Courts
This list represents interventions that have not worked in reducing recidivism (or have no or insufficient
evidence) as they do not use behavioral strategies:
•Shaming Programs; Drug education programs are lecture-oriented and attempt to simply provide
awareness. Offenders io not have to learn or practice any skills, or have to be heavily involved in the
class. They are rarely long term or intense enough; Drug prevention classes focused on fear or
emotional appeal that might provide a short term motivation effect, but the effect wears off quickly.
Furthermore, most prevention classes focus on the wrong risk level (low); Non-action oriented
counseling that do not require members to learn new skills, apply them in the community and report back
on them and do not generally change offender behaviors; Bibliotherapy that requires the offender to read
a book and report on the lessons from it; Freudian or psychodynamic approaches may work for nonoffenders to reduce symptomology but have not worked with offenders to reduce risk of recidivism;
Vague, unstructured rehabilitation programs have no clear theory, structured manual or progressive
steps; Self esteem programs target self esteem which is not a criminogenic need; Non skill-based
education programs that do not teach skills tend to have little to no effect.
Sources: see D.A. ANDREWS & JAMES BONTA, THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT, 4TH
ED. 337 (Anderson Publishing, 2006); F. T. Cullen, Rehabilitation and Treatment Programs, in CRIME:
PUBLIC POLICIES FOR CRIME CONTROL 253-289 (James Q. Wilson & Joan Petersilia eds., 2004); E.
J. Latessa, Francis T. Cullen, & Paul Gendreau, Beyond Correctional Quackery—Professionalism and the
Possibility of Effective Treatment, 66 FED. PROBATION 43 (2002); T. R. Tyler, et al., Reintegrative
Shaming, Procedural Justice, and Recidivism: The Engagement of Offenders’ Psychological Mechanisms
in the Canberra RISE Drinking-and-Driving Experiment, 41 LAW & SOC’Y REV. 553 (2007).
•Self Help groups: There is some controversy on this subject, especially as it relates to AA. This is a hard
area to research because AA is anonymous and there are few studies that single out offenders and look
primarily at recidivism. The research suggests that as a primary treatment AA is not effective in reducing
recidivism, but that AA may be effective as an aftercare intervention if the offender completes treatment
and is motivated. Speculation on why this is true includes that the offender does not practice skills in AA,
there is no way to know who attends AA meetings and how well they serve as role models, AA tends to
focus only on substance abuse and not other criminogenic needs, and coerced attendance does not
promote offender motivation.
•A 1999 study by Richard Kownacki and William Shadish, Does Alcoholics Anonymous Work? The
Results from a Meta-Analysis of Controlled Experiments, indicated that “Randomized studies yielded
worse results for AA than nonrandomized studies, but were biased by selection of coerced subjects.
Attending conventional AA meetings was worse than no treatment or alternative treatment; residential AAmodeled treatments performed no better or worse than alternatives; and several components of AA
seemed supported (recovering alcoholics as therapists, peer-led self-help therapy groups, teaching the
Twelve-Step process, and doing an honest inventory).”
Another study (2003), Attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous Meetings after Inpatient Treatment Related to
Improved Outcomes? by Michael Gossop, et al, National Addiction Centre, Maudsley Hospital/Institute of
Psychiatry, looked at the relationship between attendance at AA meetings prior to, during, and after
leaving treatment. It found significant improvements after leaving treatment in drinking behaviors
(frequency, quantity and reported problems), psychological problems and quality of life. Frequent AA
attendees had superior drinking outcomes to non-AA attendees and infrequent attendees. Those who
62
© National Center for State Courts
attended AA on a weekly or more frequent basis after treatment reported greater reductions
in alcohol consumption and more abstinent days. The findings support the role of Alcoholics
Anonymous as a useful aftercare resource.
62
© National Center for State Courts
Punishment in the justice system takes many forms. The items on this slide represent some of the
common ones used. In the absence of a treatment component, none of these sanctioning programs has
been shown to be effective in reducing recidivism as they do not change the thinking patterns of
offenders, target criminogenic needs, or teach pro-social skills and behaviors. In fact some sanctioning
programs actually increase recidivism slightly. A meta-analysis by Smith et al. (2002), for example,
found that incarcerated offenders had a recidivism rate approximately seven percent higher than
offenders in the community, and inmates with longer sentences (average of 31 months) had a recidivism
rate three percent higher than inmates with shorter sentences (average of 13 months). Because many
of the studies included in the meta-analysis were methodologically flawed, the specific recidivism rates
need to be confirmed by more rigorous research; but overall they suggest an increase in recidivism for
imprisoned offenders rather than a decrease.
See also the supporting research referred to on slide X below re use of incarceration by probation as
an administratively-imposed sanction.
Offenders who appear to be resistant to punishment include psychopathic risk takers, those under
the influence of substances, and those with histories of being punished. Most medium and high risk
offenders have one or more of these traits. This doesn’t mean that these sanctioning programs are
necessarily inappropriate when they serve other sentencing purposes, e.g., punishment, incapacitation,
or control; but absent an effective treatment component, they likely will have no or an increased effect
on recidivism.
Sources: Mark W. Lipsey and Francis T. Cullen, The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: A
Review of Systematic Reviews 3 ANN. REV. L. SOC. SCI. 297 (2007); PAULA SMITH, ET AL.,
CENTER FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE STUDIES, THE EFFECTS OF PRISON SENTENCES AND
INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS ON RECIDIVISM: GENERAL EFFECTS AND INDIVIDUAL
DIFFERENCES (2002); Don M. Gottfredson, National Institute of Justice, Effects of Judges’ Sentencing
Decisions on Criminal Cases, RESEARCH IN BRIEF (Nov.1999).
63
© National Center for State Courts
The Washington Institute for Public Policy conducted a systematic review of all research
evidence on programs designed to reduce crime. Meta-analyses of sanctions-based programs
revealed, at best, no effects on reducing recidivism. The authors used conservative criteria in
conducting the meta-analyses, weighting studies based on the quality of their research design
and discounting results if the intervention was a demonstration of a program (ensuring the best
application of the intervention) rather than a more “real world” application in a typical setting.
Source: E. K. Drake, et al., Evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime and criminal
justice costs: Implications in Washington State, 4 VICTIMS OFFENDERS 170-196 (2009).
64
© National Center for State Courts
The ultimate effectiveness of well designed supervision and treatment programs depends on how well and
faithfully the program models are implemented. Andrews and Bonta found that “real world” implementations
of EB programs involving populations of over 100 offenders and researched by external researchers were on
average roughly one third to one half as effective in reducing recidivism as “demonstration projects”depending on the extent of compliance with basic principles of EBP. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The
Psychology of Criminal Conduct (4 th ed.). Newark, NJ.
The National Implementation Research Network notes that neither information dissemination (e.g., research
literature, practice guidelines) nor training are sufficient by themselves to achieve effective implementation.
Effective staff selection, skill-based training, practice-based coaching, practitioner and program performance
evaluation are also required. Implementing organizations are typically thinly resourced, and the current
structures and processes of many human service organizations also make it difficult to systematically
implement EB programs and practices. Such organizations frequently serve a large population base
reflecting a wide range of complex combinations of presenting problems, and rarely consider EB
competencies and performance in hiring and evaluating staff. Fixsen, D., Naoom, S., Blase, K., et. al.
Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature (2005), available at
http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/resources/implementation-research-synthesis-literature.
The Crime and Justice Institute, therefore advocates, for example, an implementation model that integrates
EBP implmentation with internal organizational development and external collaboration. Lore Joplin, Brad
Bogue, Nancy Campbell, Mark Carey, Elyse Clawson, Dot Faust, Kate Florio, Bill Wasson, and William
Woodward, Using an Integrated Model to Implement Evidence-based Practices in Corrections CJI (2005).
A number of comprehensive probation supervision training programs based on recent implementation
research findings (e.g., Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision [STICS], Effective Practices in
Correctional Settings [EPICS] , Carey Guides) have recently been developed to help probation agencies
“transfer ‘what works’ knowledge into the real world of everyday community supervision.” See, Guy Bourgon,
James Bonta, Tanya Rugge, Terri-Lynne Scott, Annie K. Yessine, “Program Design, Implementation, and
Evaluation in “Real World” Community Supervision,” 74:1 Federal Probation (June 2010).
65
65
© National Center for State Courts
66
© National Center for State Courts
67
© National Center for State Courts
Responsivity: matching the characteristics of the treatment program and treatment provider to
characteristics of the individual offender.
68
© National Center for State Courts
The responsivity principle is sometimes referred to in the literature as the principle of “specific
responsivity.” When the term “specific responsivity” is used in the literature to describe this
principle, it is to contrast this principle with the previous principle we discussed, the “treatment”
principle, which is often referred to in the literature not as the ‘treatment” principle but as the
principle of “general responsivity.”
69
© National Center for State Courts
What are the offender characteristics that need to be “matched” to characteristics of the
intervention and/or provider? They are often called “responsivity factors” and these are some of
the most common ones. See Jennifer Skeem, et al., Assessing Relationship Quality in
Mandated Community Treatment: Blending Care with Control 19 PSYCHOL. ASSESSMENT
397-410 (2007); Jennifer Skeem, et al., Exploring “What Works" in Probation and Mental
Health, 2008; Skeem, Manchak, and Johnson, Specialty Mental Health vs.
Traditional Probation, 2008.
Mental health
A 2006 study found that serious mental illness and substance abuse had little effect on future
criminality. The study concluded that: “Unless factors unique to serious mental illness can be
specifically associated with behavior leading to incarceration, the criminalization hypothesis
should be reconsidered in favor of more powerful risk factors for crime that are widespread in
social settings of persons with serious mental illness.” John Junginger, Ph.D., et al., Effects of
Serious Mental Illness and Substance Abuse on Criminal Offenses, 57 PSYCHIATRIC
SERVICES 879-882 (June 2006).
These results are similar to the 2008 work compiled by Skeem, et al. where they indicate that
the mentally ill offender is more likely to possess more of the eight criminogenic needs which
could be one of the reasons why so many mentally ill offenders are in the justice system. There
is evidence, however, that offenders with psychotic disorders are more likely to commit violent
crimes. See Jennifer L. Skeem and Jennifer Eno Louden, Toward Evidence-Based Practice for
Probationers and Parolees Mandated to Mental Health Treatment, 57 PSYCHIATRIC
SERVICES 333-342 (Mar. 2006).
70
© National Center for State Courts
.
70
© National Center for State Courts
One of the most important responsivity factors we will discuss is “offender motivation.”
•Coerced treatment is effective; offenders are rarely motivated to change behavior at the outset, and
coercion can get offenders into treatment and keep them there longer. But, external pressure & controls
only work as long as the pressure is applied. The goal is to avoid condition where offender is only entering
or remaining in treatment under coercion & going through the motions of compliance.
• Ultimately offenders must become self-motivated; must progress from “extrinsic” to “intrinsic”
motivation; the ability to change must ultimately be accompanied by willingness and desire to change.
Motivation is not a static or fixed personality trait or attribute. Instead, it is a cognitive state which can be
changed, particularly when a respected role-model engages the individual in an exploration of their
behavior as it relates to their own values and goals.
• The first step in the process of building intrinsic motivation is to acknowledge that the offender is in
charge here and controls the result; even if offender has the ability to change, change will not occur until
offender decides to make some changes. Respecting that the offender is in charge of determining whether
she will succeed in changing her behaviors places responsibility & accountability for those changes
squarely on the offender as the starting point for the change process.
•The way the court, probation, and others interact with the offender can play a major role in either
promoting or retarding the development of intrinsic motivation. The court and others can play an
important role in preparing the offender to change, by building a positive, firm, but caring relationship with
the offender.
• In treatment settings, 30% of the likelihood of successful outcomes is dependent on the treatment
provider building a “therapeutic alliance” with the client. An offender’s success in changing behavior is
also often significantly impacted by the offender’s relationship with a positive role model or change agenta friend, minister, coach, therapist, or family member who inspired, initiated, promoted, or supported the
offender’s commitment to the change process.
•But judges, corrections officers, and other criminal justice authorities often serve in a dual role-both
controlling and caring, cop and counselor-responsible for enforcing the law as well as supporting efforts to
change offender behavior in a pro-social direction.
•Recent research by Jennifer Skeem and others found that a high-quality, dual-role relationship
characterized by a firm, fair and caring relationship on the part of supervising parole officers, as
contrasted with confrontational approaches resulting in parolee resistance, significantly reduced the risk of
re-arrest among parolees even taking into account the parolees’ problematic personality traits and risk
levels. P. Kennedy, J. Skeem, S. Manchak, J. Louden, “Relationship Quality and Supervision Failure:
Firm, Fair, and Caring Officer-Offender Relationships Protect Against Supervision Failure,” Law and
Human Behavior (in press). See also the “balanced” supervision approach research referenced on slide
50.
• MI and Stages of Change are considered on following slides.
71
© National Center for State Courts
•
•
•
•
•
•
Beyond treating the offender firmly and fairly, one of the most effective ways to engage
the offender in the change process, learn more about the offender’s specific risk factors,
and take a first step in developing intrinsic motivation is a communication technique
called “motivational interviewing” (MI).
MI, a process of “speaking positively with someone who is failing,” is an interviewing
technique of asking open-ended questions to get offenders thinking and talking about
why they have engaged in anti-social behaviors, what their primary dynamic risk factors
are, and their own “ambivalence” as we discussed during the discussion of cognitive
programs and stages of change.
It consists of these key components on the slide.
Although MI is frequently used in drug court–type settings, and is more easily adaptable
to many post-conviction status hearing calendars, there are frequently time constraints
to its full use in handling traditional crowded dockets. There are also constraints in its
use while also seeking to achieve other sentencing purposes, including general
deterrence and services to victims.
To the extent that recidivism reduction is a primary sentencing objective, however, the
judge should at least seek to avoid behaviors that undermine the development of
offender motivation, and, especially at the critical point of handing off supervision
responsibilities to probation, seek to maximize the offender’s readiness, willingness,
desire, and/or commitment to change.
See Motivational Interviewing for Judicial Officers, Handout 7.1,in the handout
materials.
72
© National Center for State Courts
Another important responsivity factor is the offender’s readiness to change, based on the Stages of
Change model first developed by Prochaska & Diclemente.
(These two slides and supporting notes are adapted from slides prepared by Mark Carey and from the
voluminous literature on the Stages of Change model. See, for example, James O. Prochaska and
Carlo C.DiClemente, “Stages and Processes of Self-Change of Smoking: Towards an Integrative
Model of Change,” Vol. 51, No. 3 Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 390-396 (1983) and
more recent explication of the “Stages of Change Model/Transtheoretical Model (TTM),” available at
http://currentnursing.com/nursing_theory/transtheoretical_model.html.)
In making behavioral changes we (and offenders specifically) go through well-documented stages.
1.Pre-contemplation—the offender does not yet believe or accept that there is a problem, ignores
evidence to the contrary, and does not want to change.
2. Contemplation—the offender has begun to seriously contemplate change but is ambivalent and has
not made a commitment to do so.
3 & 4. Determination and Action--the offender is planning to change, then beginning to make that
intention public, then actively taking steps to modify his or her behavior, underlying thinking and
attitudes, or environment. At this stage the offender is reassessing key aspects of her or his life and
beginning to make some changes.
5. Maintenance—the offender is maintaining progress in changing behaviors.
6. Relapse—the offender returns to old patterns of behavior.
73
© National Center for State Courts
Copy of slide is contained in notebook as Handout 7.2.
Continuation from previous slide. The underlined portions below are the appropriate responses
by the change agent to the offender at each respective stage:
1. Pre-contemplation—the offender does not yet believe or accept that there is a problem,
ignores evidence to the contrary, and does not want to change. Attempting to engage the
offender in some reflection and self-diagnosis is often the best approach.
2. Contemplation—the offender has begun to seriously contemplate change but is ambivalent
and has not made a commitment to do so. The change strategy at this stage is to highlight
the reasons to change and risks of not doing so, strengthen the offender’s confidence
in her or his ability to do so (e.g., by imagining what their changed state might be),
provide positive feedback, refer to the success of others, and express optimism.
3 & 4. Determination and Action--the offender is planning to change, then beginning to make
that intention public, then actively taking steps to modify his or her behavior, underlying
thinking and attitudes, or environment. At this stage the offender is reassessing key aspects of
her or his life and beginning to make some changes. The best strategy at this stage is to
help the offender formulate a menu of options, or a clear plan with realistic goals and
rewards and identifiable risks; emphasize the offender’s choices; be positive;
emphasize the success of others; reinforce the steps the offender is taking.
5. Maintenance—the offender is maintaining progress in changing behaviors. The objective
here is to ensure that change is maintained and that relapse does not occur. The
desired treatment approach is to help the offender discover and apply strategies to
prevent relapse.
6. Relapse—the offender returns to old patterns of behavior. The treatment strategy is to
reevaluate and help the offender reengage in the stages of contemplation,
determination, and action while avoiding demoralization.
74
© National Center for State Courts
75
© National Center for State Courts
76
© National Center for State Courts
Three scenarios are included in participant notebooks as Handout 8.1.
Lydia RNA face sheet is Handout 8.2
Alex RNA face sheet is Handout 8.3.
77
© National Center for State Courts
This slide is to remind participants as they consider the sentencing scenarios that recidivism
reduction is only one purpose of sentencing, that recidivism reduction and punishment should
not be viewed as an either/or proposition, and that EBS provisions designed to reduce
recidivism in sentencing an offender in the community (i.e., placing the offender on probation,
not sending the offender to prison) must be integrated with any other provisions of the
sentence intended to carry out other applicable sentencing purposes, such as punishment and
behavioral control.
78
© National Center for State Courts
See, Douglas B. Marlowe, Evidence-Based Sentencing for Drug Offenders: An Analysis of
Prognostic Risks and Criminogenic Needs, 1 Chap. J. Crim. Just. 167, 167-201 (2009)
Copy of slide is contained in participant notebooks as Handout 8.4.
79
© National Center for State Courts
80
© National Center for State Courts
Primary responsibility for enforcement of conditions of probation rests with probation.
Goals: overriding goal is not merely detection and punishment for violative behaviors but successful
completion of probation and promotion of future law-abiding behaviors by holding probationers more
accountable for compliance than we have traditionally, and also by focusing more prospectively on
how to promote future compliance and law abiding behaviors. Importance of reward responses to
compliant/pro-social behaviors as well as sanctions in response to violations.
Process: discussed in following slides
Tools: Policies etc. ensure consistency and transparency, shape offender expectations, provide a
measure of procedural fairness, avoid arbitrariness
Response grid template is included as Handout 9.1; Napa Co. response grids are
included as Handout 9.2.
Adm. Sanctions policies, discussed in next slides
Graduated continuum ensures responsivity, i.e. that the response is tailored to the offender’s
unique circumstances
Factors: Severity of violation, underlying offense (and criminal history), and violation/compliance
history are more traditional factors
Consideration of risk level, risk factors, and motivation are more contemporary EB
considerations designed to avoid unnecessary probation revocation (failure) and re-offense.
Rel. to risk factors: The response must target the critical risk factors, i.e. address the risk factor that
lead to the violation. In addition, the severity of response depends in part on how critical the violated
condition is to the success of the probationer’s supervision plan (Marlowe’s distal v. proximal
objectives and the ex. of a positive drug test re addict vs. recreational users.
Response must also be appropriate to probationer’s stage of change re motivation.
81
© National Center for State Courts
In dual role relationships with offenders, research indicates a judge, police officer, or probation
officer's ability to have a positive influence on the offender depends on the extent to which the
offender views the decision-making process as being “fair.” Research in the field of
“procedural fairness” describes the qualities of “procedural fairness“ from the point of view of
one coming into contact with a police officer or judge. The slide identifies those four qualities.
When criminal defendants feel they have been treated “fairly,” the research indicates they are
more likely to accept the decision-making system as legitimate, more likely to voluntarily
comply with orders and directives, and more likely to obey the law thereafter.
See TOM R. TYLER & YUEN J. HUO, TRUST IN THE LAW: ENCOURAGING PUBLIC
COOPERATION WITH THE POLICE AND COURT (Russell Sage Foundation, 2002).
82
© National Center for State Courts
Primary responsibility for enforcement of conditions of probation rests with probation.
Goals: overriding goal is not merely detection and punishment for violative behaviors but successful
completion of probation and promotion of future law-abiding behaviors by holding probationers more
accountable for compliance than we have traditionally, and also by focusing more prospectively on
how to promote future compliance and law abiding behaviors. Importance of reward responses to
compliant/pro-social behaviors as well as sanctions in response to violations.
Process: discussed in following slides
Tools: Policies etc. ensure consistency and transparency, shape offender expectations, provide a
measure of procedural fairness, avoid arbitrariness
Response grid template is included as Handout 9.1; Napa Co. response grids are
included as Handout 9.2.
Adm. Sanctions policies, discussed in next slides
Graduated continuum ensures responsivity, i.e. that the response is tailored to the offender’s
unique circumstances
Factors: Severity of violation, underlying offense (and criminal history), and violation/compliance
history are more traditional factors
Consideration of risk level, risk factors, and motivation are more contemporary EB
considerations designed to avoid unnecessary probation revocation (failure) and re-offense.
Rel. to risk factors: The response must target the critical risk factors, i.e. address the risk factor that
lead to the violation. In addition, the severity of response depends in part on how critical the violated
condition is to the success of the probationer’s supervision plan (Marlowe’s distal v. proximal
objectives and the ex. of a positive drug test re addict vs. recreational users.
Response must also be appropriate to probationer’s stage of change re motivation.
83
© National Center for State Courts
• At least 12 states authorize use of short periods of incarceration as an administrative
sanction:
• AR-up to 7 consec. days, up to 10 times, up to 30 days total,
• CA- in post-release community supervision population, up to 10 days each,
• ID –no authorizing legislation , done by probation order and administrative rule
• KY – up to 10 consec. days, up to 30 days in a calendar year
• LA – there is a maximum no. of days/ per year
• MO –
• NH – up to 5 days total
• NC – “quick dips” , 2-3 days, up to 6 days/month, up to 3 months
• OR – the earliest adopter (1993), revised several times subsequently, now up to 30 days
• SC –
• SD – 2013 legislation, Supreme Court by rule to establish the system and process
• & WA – one of early adopters (1999), recent modifying legislation (2012) promoted use of
swift & certain sanctions – up to 30 days on higher-level technical violations (formerly 60); up to
3 days on lower level
• A study of probationers discharged in Multnomah Co, OR in 2005 found that controlling for
other factors probationers who had received jail sanctions (averaging 64 days) in response to
violations were more likely to be revoked and more likely to be re-arrested and reconvicted in
the county within an average follow-up period of 20 months and that the number of jail days
had a negative effect on such outcomes. A. F. Rengifo & C.S. Scott-Hayward, Assessing the
Effectiveness of Intermediate Sanctions in Multnomah County, Oregon (Vera Institute of
Justice, June 2008). In 2007-2008, Multnomah increased use of alternative sanctions and
decreased length of jail stays reporting 2% decline in re-arrest rates and use of 80 fewer jail
beds each day—a significant cost savings. S. Taylor, Director, Multnomah County Department
of Community Justice, “Effective Sanctioning Practices: Multnomah County’s Approach To
Sanctions And Recidivism,” Presentation at Summit of Effective Responses to Probation and
Parole Violations, December 11, 2012.
•WSIIP study of WA’s use of incarceration as administrative response to technical violations
between 2001 and 2008 found that incarceration was actually associated with increased
recidivism. (Controlled for crim history, risk & demo factors but didn’t use a random control
methodology. Didn’t study incapacitation effect of confinement; & didn’t include offenders with
more than 1 PO. Not proven whether confinement caused the recidivism or that officers
ordering confinement might have been better judges of risk.) E.K. Drake & S. Aos (2012)
Confinement for Technical Violations of Community Supervision: Is there an Effect on Felony
Recidivism?
84
© National Center for State Courts
I.
Express statutory authority usually avoids s/p challenges, but, in absence,
question arises whether authority to impose sanctions in response to a violation
has been judicially delegated and whether authority is delegable under state s/p
provisions. Some states require courts to specifically authorize; others allow
judges to withhold authorization.
II. No case law on application of federal DP. Full federal DP applicable in probation
revocation proceedings per Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973) probably not applicable in
administrative sanctions in light of interest in swiftness, certainty, consistency,
reducing recidivism, avoiding revocation, and minimal periods of incarceration; but
if incarceration is at stake and violation or sanction is contested, written notice and
hearing before neutral decision maker (jud or adm) probably required. 2 models:
adm (GA, KY, LA,); judicial (NH, NC, OR ). Waiver of jud. hearing and counsel, or
provide adm hearings (with or w/o rt to counsel) which are also waiveable
III. Where incarceration not at stake, right to counsel not involved and hearing before
neutral hearing officer probably not required, but procedural fairness if not DP
would suggest that if violation or sanction is contested, review, approval or right to
appeal to independent judicial or administrative officer is appropriate. Whether
judicial or administrative may depend on law and custom in the jurisdiction.
Conformity to grid and policy may constitute pre-approval of the appropriateness of
the sanction.
IV. No auto right to counsel even in revocation proceedings; in adm. sanctions where
incarceration at stake probably only required if D is clearly unable to represent own
interest; but may be right to counsel under state law.
V. Evidence-based responses to offender behaviors, and the legal and constitutional
issues involved in use of administrative sanctions, are discussed in some detail in
this 2013 publication by APPA, NCSC, and Pew Charitable Trusts: Effective
Responses to Offender Behaviors: Lessons Learned for Probation and Parole
Supervision , available at https://www.appanet.org/eWeb/docs/APPA/pubs/EROBLLPPS-Report.pdf.
85
Handout 9.3 presents the Lydia Violation of Probation Scenario.
86
87
© National Center for State Courts
A repeat of slides from Unit 1.
EBP & EBS build on the successful experience of many drug courts, drug treatment programs,
and problem-solving courts and take courts’ recidivism reduction efforts to the next level
because the underlying principles of effective sentencing and corrections are not restricted to
lower level drug cases but cut across the entire criminal caseload.
88
© National Center for State Courts
89
© National Center for State Courts
Participants will respond to the same 10 True-False questions posed at the beginning of the training
in order to test their post program understanding of principles of EBP to reduce recidivism.
90
© National Center for State Courts
This six hour curriculum was created by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) with
financial support from the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. It is an
updated and revised version of a model judicial education curriculum originally
created by the NCSC, the National Judicial College (NJC), and the Crime and Justice Institute
(CJI) with financial support from the Public Safety Performance Project of the Pew Center on
the States and the State Justice Institute. The views expressed herein are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Pew Center
on the States, or the State Justice Institute .
91
© National Center for State Courts