Applying the Principles of Effective
Interventions with Juvenile Offenders
Presented by:
Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D.
Center for Criminal Justice Research
Division of Criminal Justice
University of Cincinnati
www.uc.edu/criminaljustice
Edward.Latessa@uc.edu
Evidence Based – What does it mean?
There are different forms of evidence:
– The lowest form is anecdotal evidence, but it
makes us feel good
– The highest form is empirical evidence – results
from controlled studies, but it doesn’t make us
feel good
What does the Research tell us?
There is often a Misapplication of Research: “XXX Study
Says”
- the problem is if you believe every study we wouldn’t eat
anything (but we would drink a lot of red wine!)
• Looking at one study can be a mistake
• Need to examine a body of research
• So, what does the body of knowledge about correctional
interventions tell us?
Prior Research Has Indicated….
….that correctional services and interventions can be
effective in reducing recidivism for offenders, however,
not all programs are equally effective
• The most effective programs are based on some principles of effective
interventions
• Risk (Who)
• Need (What)
• Treatment (How)
• Program Integrity (How Well)
Risk Principle
• Provide more intense services to
higher-risk offenders
• Targeting lower risk offenders can lead
to increases in recidivism rates
The Risk Principle & Correctional
Intervention Results from Meta Analysis
Change In Recidivism Rates
25
20
19
15
10
5
-4
0
-5
High Risk
Dowden & Andrews, 1999
Low Risk
Average Effect Size for Juvenile Residential Facilities compared to
Community Programs and Adherence to Risk Principle
0.16
0.14
Average Effect Size
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-0.02
Adherence
Non Adherence
From: Lowenkamp, C., Latessa, E., & Lemke, R. (2006). Evaluation of Ohio's RECLAIM Funded Programs, Community Corrections Facilities, and DYS Facilities: FY 2002. University of
Cincinnati, OH. Adherence=less than 25% low risk, Non=more than 25%. Follow-up was 2.1 years
Need Principle
• Target crime producing needs and risk
factors
• Not met as often as needed—many
programs practice “correctional
quackery”
Definitely NOT Criminogenic
Needs
Need Principle
By assessing and targeting criminogenic needs for change,
agencies can reduce the probability of recidivism
Criminogenic
Non-Criminogenic
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Anti social attitudes
Anti social friends
Substance abuse
Lack of empathy
Impulsive behavior
Anxiety
Low self esteem
Creative abilities
Medical needs
Physical conditioning
Needs T argeted & Correlation with Effect Size for Youthful Offenders
0.4
0.3
Reduced
Recidivism
0.2
0.1
0
Increased
Recidivism
-0.1
Bond Anti Social Peers
Target Self-Esteem
Vague Emotional Problems
Respect Anti Social Thinking
Physical Activity
Criminogenic Needs
Effect Size
Fear of Punishment
-0.2
-0.18
-0.12
-0.09
-0.06
-0.05
-0.03
0.36
Source: Dowden and Andrews, (1999). What Works in Young Offender Treatment: A Meta Analysis. Forum on Correctional Research.
Correctional Services of Canada
Targeting Criminogenic Need: Results from MetaAnalyses from Youthful Offenders
0.3
0.25
Reduction in
Recidivism
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
Increase in
Recidivism
0
Less than half criminogenic
Fifty % or more criminogenic
-0.05
Source: Dowden and Andrews (1999). What Works in Youthful Offender Treatment. Forum on Correctional Research..
Treatment Principle: Provide
Behavioral Treatment
Behavioral vs. NonBehavioral – Results
from Meta Analysis
0.35
0.29
0.3
Reduced 0.25
Recidivism
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.07
0.05
0
Nonbehavioral (N=83)
Behavioral (N=41)
Andrews, D.A. 1994. An Overview of Treatment Effectiveness. Research and Clinical Principles, Department of Psychology, Carleton
University. The N refers to the number of studies.
Attributes of Behavioral Treatment
• Focus on current factors that influence
behavior
• Action oriented
• Offender behavior is appropriately
reinforced
Most Effective Behavioral
Models
• Structured social learning where new skills
and behavioral are modeled
• Cognitive behavioral approaches that target
criminogenic risk factors
• Family based approaches that train family
on appropriate techniques
Social Learning
Refers to several processes through which
individuals acquire attitudes, behavior, or
knowledge from the persons around them. Both
modeling and instrumental conditioning appear to
play a role in such learning
The Four Principles of Cognitive
Intervention
1. Thinking affects behavior
2. Antisocial, distorted, unproductive
irrational thinking causes antisocial and
unproductive behavior
3. Thinking can be influenced
4. We can change how we feel and behave by
changing what we think
Relationship between Treatment Model and
Treatment Effect for Residential Programs
% Change in Recidivism
10
9
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
Cognitive Behavioral
Other
-9
% Change in Recidivism
Why practice? Relationship between
Treatment Activities and Treatment Effect for
Residential Programs
15
13
11
9
7
5
3
1
-1
-3
-5
13
6
2
-4
Practice
Role Playing
Yes
No
Of course some things don’t work
Ineffective Approaches
• Drug prevention classes focused on fear and other
emotional appeals
• Shaming offenders
• Drug education programs
• Non-directive, client centered approaches
• Bibliotherapy
• Freudian approaches
• Talking cures
• Self-Help programs
• Vague unstructured rehabilitation programs
• Medical model
• Fostering self-regard (self-esteem)
• “Punishing smarter” (boot camps, scared straight, etc.)
Average Effects of Punishing Smarter Programs on Recidivism:
Results from Meta Analyses
2
% Recidivism
Reduced
0
-2
-4
% Recidivism
Increased
-6
-8
-10
-12
%
Fines
Drug Testing
Restitution
Elec Monit
Scared Straight
ISP
Juv Boot Camps
0.4
0
-3
-3
-4
-6
-11
Sources: Gendreau et al (2000) The Effects of Community Sanctions and Incarceration on Recidivism, FORUM; Aos et al (1999) The
Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime, Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Fidelity Principle: Make Sure
Programs Are Delivered With
Fidelity and Integrity
• Importance can’t be stressed enough
• Can make or break a program
• Can be measured
• Most importantly it is dynamic and can be
changed
Effects of Quality Programs Delivery for Evidenced Based
Programs for Youth Offenders
40
30
Reduced
Recidivism
20
10
0
Increased
Recidivism
-10
-20
Functional Family Therapy
Competently Delivered
Not Competent
38
-16.7
Aggression Replacement Therapy
24
-10.4
Source: Outcome Evaluation of Washington State's Research-Based Programs for Juvenile Offenders. January
2004. Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Therapist Competency Ratings and Recidivism
35
12 Month Felony Recidivism
30
29
25
25
22
20
17
14
15
10
5
0
Not Competent
Marginal
Competent
Highly Competent
Control Group
Source: Outcome Ev aluation of Washington State's Research-Based Programs for Juvenile Offenders . January 2004. Washington State
Institute for Public Policy.
Results—Impact of Program Factors Predicting
Felony Adjudication Recidivism Measure
Predicted Recidivism Rates
70
60
60
53
50
47
43
40
36
31
27
30
22
18
20
11
10
8
7
0
Low
Program Score 0
Moderate
Program Score 12
High
Very High
Program Score 24
Lessons Learned from the Research
Who you put in a program is important –
pay attention to risk
What you target is important – pay attention
to criminogenic needs
How you target youth for change is
important – use behavioral approaches
Important Considerations
o
 Assessment is the engine that
drives effective
programs
helps you know who & what to target
use valid third generation instruments
 Program Integrity make a difference
Service delivery, disruption of delinquent networks, better
training & supervision of staff, & QA are all important
aspects of effective programs
Don’t be afraid to evaluate what you do
Many Programs Use the Christopher
Columbus Style of Program Design
WHEN HE SET OUT…
He didn’t know where he was going.
WHEN HE GOT THERE…
He didn’t know where he was.
WHEN HE GOT BACK…
He didn’t know where he had been.
Use Evidence Based Approaches and
Design Programs Around the
Empirical Research