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