Making Sense of Evidence
Based Practice
Joseph Suciu, Oriana House
Ohio Justice Alliance for
Community Corrections
Thursday, October 8, 2015
1:45 PM to 3:15 PM
Making Sense of
Evidence Based
Practice
Training Agenda
1. Overview Evidence Based
Practice
2. Criminal Justice Big Picture
3. Establish working definitions
4. Leave with an impression of
EBP
Observations on if/why
a practice works
EVIDENCE
BASED
PRACTICE
Professional assess
risk/benefit in unique
situations
Preferences and Values
of those involved
Making Sense of Evidence Based
Practice
• Research Findings can be
You
can
thought of as being on a
continuum, from weak to
prove
strong.
• Meta-Analysis combines and anything
weights all studies.
with
statistics
Making Sense of Evidence Based
Practice
Great Ideas
Workable Ideas
• The Crime problem in
America/One specific case
• The solution is employment,
more police/arresting
everyone who trespasses at
one house
• The problem should be
sufficiently specific (Homicide
in neighborhood)
• Balanced Defined
Solution(Homicide Reduction
in a neighborhood)
• Outcomes mixed (reduce
homicides by 8%, community
relations
Making Sense of Making Sense
Our goal is not
perfection, it’s to
improve practice
so it makes sense
(Fagan and
Guggenheim)
Police Presence
What happens
to crime when
police presence
is increased?
• Kansas City Preventive
Patrol Experiment
(Kelling et al., 1974)
• Problem: Crime in 15
Districts
• Solution: Random Police
Patrol
• Proactive, Reactive and
Control
Police Presence
Outcome: Level of
Presence had no effect
on level of crime
Making Sense of Police Presence
Crime is Concentrated by place (smaller than a
block)
Crime is concentrated by time (7pm to 3am)
50 % 0f calls are from 3 % of places
HOT SPOTS (1989) (Sherman, Gartin, Buerger,
1989)
Aggressive traffic patrol led to reductions in
Robbery and Firearms Crime, but random patrol
did not (Kessler, 1985 and McGarrell et al, 2001)
Making Sense of Police Presence
Dosage
When focused Decreases
crime and disorder
(drugs, vandalism…)
Adding staff isn’t always the
solution
Does it solve the problem?
Deter the Criminals
• More punishment for a
behavior makes it more
unpleasant, therefore people
are less likely to do it.
• Scared Straight showed kids
prison to deter crime
• Fear based Antidrug programs
• Mandatory punishment for
Drunk Driving
Making Sense of Deter the Criminals
• Nine studies looked at Scared Straight: no
effect/made kids worse
• Fear based drug programs found to have
criminogenic effects/heighten the allure of drugs
(Walker, 2006) High Risk
• Antidrunk driving deterrence had short term
effects which diminished quickly (Walker, 2006)
Low Risk
Making Sense of Deter the Criminals
• Short term effects that
diminish quickly
• Some benefits when combined
with other strategies
• More benefits with low risk
• Adds excitement for high risk
• Contributes to dissatisfaction
with the criminal justice
system
Legitimacy
•
•
•
•
Perception of
lawfulness of Criminal
Justice agencies
Interactions
business/rude (Not
serious crime)
Satisfaction with
Criminal Justice System
by offenders
Perception of
discrimination
Making Sense of Criminal Justice
Legitimacy
• Perception that staff are legitimate contributes
to law abiding behavior (limited research on
serious crime) (Tyler) (Walker, 2006)
• Among offenders how they felt they were treated
by the system matters (Casper, Tyler and Fisher)
• Domestic Violence reduced recidivism
• Was the system fair? Did I get to tell my side of
the story?
• Limited evidence
Pretrial Decision
Jail
Bond
• Remain in jail so you come to
court and don’t commit
another crime
• Remain in community where
you appear in court and don’t
commit another crime
Making Sense of Pretrial Decisions
• Overall
Effect on
Crime ????
• Consider by
person
• 6% of Felons were found to
abscond (Bureau of Justice
Stats, 2000)
• 10% rearrested for a new
felony
• Violent Crime did not predict
rearrest
• Drug Testing did not predict
rearrest (except heroin)
Making Sense of Pretrial Decisions
• Overall keeping people in jail
will not reduce serious crime,
because such a small amount
are committed by people on
Bond
• 50% crime reduction if
processed in 6 weeks
(Streamline process)
Intermediate Sanctions and the next
best thing
• Boot Camps
• Community Based
Correctional Facilities
• Halfway House
• Day Reporting
• Electronic Monitoring
• Parole
• Probation
Recidivism
It depends on
Who?
What?
How?
Making Sense of Intermediate
Sanctions
• Effectiveness is defined as
recidivism reduction (metaanalysis)
• Changing Criminality
• Reducing Crime
• Net Widening
• Balanced with cost
• Long Term Recidivism
Reduction requires good
offender management in the
short term.
COMPLEX PROBLEM: Multimodal (many
solutions) (Goldstein, Glick & Gibbs, 1998)
Multiple Stakeholders involved
• If everyone took a gun
• and shot one criminal,
• it would cut the crime
rate in half
• … Archie Bunker
Making Sense of Intermediate
Sanctions
• Who? High Risk
• Adjusting length of sanction
and level of services to
likelihood of reoffending
reduces recidivism
(Lowenkamp, Latessa and
Holsinger 2006)
Risk
• Refers to probability of committing a crime
Identify High (50%), Medium (30%) and Low
(10%) (Latessa & Lovins, 2010)
• Direct intensive treatment (not just security) to
high and medium risk offenders
• Low get worse in intensive criminal justice
sanctions/treatment
• History of Antisocial Behaviors and Present
situation
-15 -14
-18 -17
-20
-6 -5
-8
-10
-10
5
3
3
3
2
10 10
8
8
8
7
10
15
12 12 12 13 13
0
-2 -2
Probability of Reincarceration
Making Sense of The Risk Principle—
High Risk Offenders in Ohio HH Study
40
21 22
19
20
24 25 25
27
30
34
32 33
30
-30
-34
-40
M
M
m
ra LL
og
Pr ram KK
og
Pr ram JJ
og
Pr ram II
og
Pr ram HH
og
Pr ram GG
og
Pr ram FF
og
Pr ram EE
og
Pr ram DD
og
Pr ram CC
og
Pr ram BB
og
Pr ram AA
og
Pr ram Z
og
Pr ram Y
og
Pr ram X
og
Pr ram W
og
Pr ram V
og
Pr ram U
og
Pr ram S
og
Pr ram All
og
Pr ram R
og
Pr ram Q
og
Pr ram P
og
Pr ram N
og
Pr ram M
og
Pr ram O
og
Pr ram L
og
Pr ram K
og
Pr ram J
og
Pr ram I
og
Pr ram H
og
Pr ram G
og
Pr ram F
og
Pr ram E
og
Pr ram D
og
Pr ram C
og
Pr ram B
og
Pr ram A
og
Pr ram
og
Pr
-7 -7
-29 -29
-30
-15
-16
-4 -4 -4
-5
-6
-10
-11 -11 -11
-20
-21 -21 -21 -21
Probability of Reincarceration
Making Sense of The Risk Principle—
Low Risk Offenders in Ohio HH Study
0
-1
-2 -2 -2
3
3
2
1
1
1
6
5
4
4
9
8
10
0
-32
-40
-36
A
A
m
ra E
og E
Pr ram
og Y
Pr ram H
og H
Pr ram L
og L
Pr ram
og L
Pr ram
og Q
Pr ram B
og B
Pr ram
og K
Pr ram G
og G
Pr ram
og Z
Pr ram
og N
Pr ram
og V
Pr ram D
og D
Pr ram I
og I
Pr ram
og S
Pr ram
og O
Pr ram ll
og A
Pr ram
og M
Pr ram
og P
Pr ram F
og F
Pr ram
og I
Pr ram M
og M
Pr ram
og R
Pr ram J
og J
Pr ram
og X
Pr ram
og E
Pr ram
og U
Pr ram
og G
Pr ram
og W
Pr ram
og J
Pr ram
og D
Pr ram
og A
Pr ram K
og K
Pr ram
og F
Pr ram C
og C
Pr ram B
og
Pr ram
og
Pr
Criminogenic Needs
Crimongenic Needs
• Antisocial Attitudes
• Antisocial Traits
• Antisocial Peers/isolation from
prosocial peers
• Abuse of Alcohol/Drugs
• Employment/Education
• Family
• Uninvolved in prosocial leisure
activities
(Andrews et al., 1990)
Needs not associated with Criminality
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Self Esteem
Cooking Skills
Discipline
Diabetes
Physical Fitness
Creativity
Fear of Punishment
Group Cohesiveness
Making Sense of Criminogenic Needs
Personality
traits interact
with
environment
• Impulsive, Narcissistic Restless,
Risk Taking, Aggressive
• Low Self Control leads to drug use
and crime
• Develop Slowly over the life course
(age 3 or younger), Seen across
settings
• Biological Evidence
• Drivers
• Changeable
Making sense of criminality
Don’t Ask: What makes someone a
criminal?
Making sense of
criminality
Ask: What makes someone NOT a
criminal?
Making Sense of Criminogenic Needs:
Targets/Treatment
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Problem Solving
Decision Making
Increase Empathy
Social Skills
Aggression
Replacement
Family and Friends
Home
Drugs and Alcohol
Employment
What to Focus on
to reduce risk?
The best reduce
recidivism by
30% (Lipsey,
1992)
Rehabilitation/
Response
Social Learning
Anti-criminal
modeling
Reinforcement
Cognitive behavioral
Active
Problem Solving
Coping Skills
Present Focus
Stepwise
Progression
Making Sense of Criminogenic NeedsFemales
• Parental Problems
• Family Stress (Van Voorhis et
al., 2009)
• Current Mental Health
Symptoms
• Poverty
• Trauma(Wright, Salisbury &
Van Voorhis, 2007)
• Static risk predictors may
over-classify females but very
similar to males(Lovins,
Lowenkamp, Latessa & Smith,
2007)
Making Sense of Criminogenic
Needs- Mental Health
Or not
• Severely Mentally Ill have
higher rates of crime than the
general public (Link, Andrews
and Cullen 1992)
• Specialized Mental Health
Supervision were rearrested
less, although failed more
(Cuyahoga and Lucas)
• Do not pose a greater risk
Responsivity Considerations
Specific
INTERFERENCE
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Anxiety/Stress
Level of motivation
Sensation seeking
Transportation
Child Care
Intelligence
Mental Health
Gender
Age
Ethnicity/race
If responsivity goes unaddressed,
we never get an opportunity to
address risk (Van Voorhis, Braswell
& Lester, 2009)
They need the program they just
can’t succeed in it
Responsivity-General
Treatment programs and supervision
approaches will be most effective
when geared to the offender’s own
abilities and learning style.
Making Sense of Responsivity
THE DRUG PROBLEM
• Operation Pressure Point: The lower east side of
New York City. Operation Hammer LA: areas
were flooded with police, producing a high
volume of arrests (Lower income and/or
minority neighborhoods)
• Less open drug dealing in the short term.
Overall the drug problem was significantly worse
over the next two years
• No change in other crimes
• Police surveyed indicate these efforts did
nothing to change drug availability
Making Sense of the Drug Business
The relationship between drugs and crime is
complex
Intense Enforcement encourages adaptation
(Drug dealers switch locations, new
technology…)
Making Sense of the Drug Business
• Drugs are supply and demand
• If people want a product, someone will supply it
• Suppressing supply has unintended
consequences (Black Markets, High Prices, Gang
Activity…)
• Obsolete products are replaced by new and
improved
• Drug dealers/buyers are replaceable
• Bans have been ineffective (Prohibition, Social
Gambling, Gun Control, Abortion, Adultery…)
Environmental Manipulation
• When the same
offense occurs in the
same spot
• Offenses will happen
more in areas where
it’s easy
• Change the place
Making Sense of Environmental
Manipulation
• Target Hardening (Hiding places)
• Access Control (Visitors, divide into smaller
spaces)
• 24 hour clean up (graffiti)
• Cameras
• Surveillance by Non Criminal Justice employees
(Mail handlers, Social Services…)
• Improved Lighting
• See through fencing, windows… barriers
removed
Making Sense of Environmental
Manipulation
• Some displacement
• Careful attention to
the environment can
reduce violations
(Worrall, 2008)
Incapacitation
• Incarcerating
people will keep
them from
committing
crimes,
therefore crime
will go down
• Mandatory
Termination/Arrest
• Longer sentences based on
crime
• Three strikes laws
Making Sense of Incapacitation
Does it work?
1% increase in prison
population is
associated with a .16%
to .31% reductions in
crime (Spelman,
2000)
Making Sense of Incapacitation
• Increasing prison populations is associated with
smaller decreases in crime
• In many crimes people are replaceable
• The majority of crime (over 90%) doesn’t come
into the criminal justice system
• Offender risk may decrease/age out
• US incarcerates 2.3 Million people
Close
Making Sense of Evidence
Based Practice
Joseph Suciu, Oriana House
Ohio Justice Alliance for
Community Corrections
Thursday, October 8, 2015
1:45 PM to 3:15 PM