community corrections statewide training conference october 31, 2013 kim english linda harrison...

Community Corrections Statewide Training Conference

October 31, 2013Kim English

Linda HarrisonChristine Adams

Peg Flick

Office of Research and Statistics, Division of Criminal Justice

EBP and Community Corrections Outcomes

Is Colorado Community Corrections Evidence-Based?

Programs are evidence-based when they apply the PRINCIPLES of EBP.

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

Are intermediate sanctions evidence-based?

4

RedOrangeYellow

= .20 >= .10 >= .05 >

Average Coefficients

Antisocial Attitudes

HX Antisocial Behavior /Low Self-control

Antisocial Peers

Criminal Personality Makeup

Dysfunctional Family Relations

Substance Abuse

School/Work

Leisure/Recreation

Criminogenic Needs

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

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Target 1-3 more non-criminogenicneeds

Target at least 4-6 morecriminogenic needs

Reduction in Recidivism

Increase in Recidivism

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

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3

Recidivism Reductions as a Function of Targeting Multiple Criminogenic vs. Non-Criminogenic Needs

Andrews, Dowden, & Gendreau, 1999; Dowden, 1998

Better outcomes

Poorer outcomes

More criminogenic than non-criminogenic needs

More non-criminogenic than criminogenic needs

Evidence-based PRINCIPLES to reduce recidivism

1. Assess each defendant’s actuarial risk and criminogenic needs

2. Enhance intrinsic motivation3. Target programming to criminogenic needs and the highest

risk offenders4. Build staff skills to implement EBP5. Deliver treatment programs using cognitive-based strategies6. Increase positive reinforcements to influence pro-social

behavior7. Engage ongoing support: involve family members and

community programs8. Identify outcomes and measure progress

EBP: Staff Skills

To provide EBP that emphasizes cognitive-behavioral 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:

– Motivation

– Learning Style

– Gender

– Age

– Culture

• Other Considerations:

– Anxiety

– Depression

– Mental Illness

– Intelligence

Source: Mark Carey, The Carey Group

• 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: Effective programs have certain characteristics

We are assessing needs in

EBP: We are assessing needs in Community Corrections

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 = 1.001 - 1.25 = 11.26 - 2.25 = 22.26 - 3.25 = 33.36 – high = 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

populationSuccess Escape New

CrimeTV 1 year

recidivismDiversion 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

Age

18-20 3% 22% 29% 7% 42% 29%

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

% 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

Education and outcome

Residential--Program Outcomes FY11-12

% of populatio

n

Success 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

Employment at termination and outcome

Residential--Program Outcomes FY11-12% of

populationSuccess Escape New

CrimeTV 1 year

recidivismMental Health

DiagnosisNo 82% 62% 11% 3% 24% 17%

Yes 18 49 15 3 33 16

Intake LSI

Low 8% 74% 6% 3% 18% 7%

Med 41 65 10 3 22 15

High 51 50 16 3 31 21

6 Mo. LSI

Low 20% 88% 2% 2% 8% 10%

Med 47 76 5 2 18 17

High 33 44 15 3 39 24

Residential--Program Outcomes FY11-12% of

populationSuccess Escape New

CrimeTV 1 year

recidivismCH 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

Crime

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

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 (n=11,786)

% 1year Recidivism(n=3386)

None (19%) 41% 19%

1-2 (43%) 59 17

3+ (38%) 66 14

# Treatment types

% Program Success

(n=5855)

% 1year Recidivism

(3386)None (18%) 34% 24%

1-2 (40%) 53 20

3+ (42%) 59 18

Among those who scored HIGH on LSI (54%)

# Treatment types

% Program Success(n=931)

% 1year Recidivism

(344)

None (18%) 60% 10%

1-2 (55%) 73 6

3+ (27%) 80 5

Among those who scored LOW on LSI (8%)

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

% 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

Transition

Not matched 20% 67% 9% 2% 22% 19%

Matched 80 66 9 3 22 17

TOTAL

Not matched 20% 62% 10% 3% 25% 20%

Matched 80 61 11 3 25 16

Recommended Substance Abuse Treatment Level

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

Residential (9443)

RDDT (429)

TC (576)

IRT*(431)

Non Residential

(1517)Daily COST $37.74 $70.76 $52.08 $55.50 $5.12

DIVERSION

Success 51% 32%** 59% -- 60%

Escape 15 19 17 -- 3

New crime 4 1 1 -- 5

TV/Revo 30 48 23 -- 31

TRANSITION

Success 63% 58%* 60% -- ---

Escape 11 10 16 -- ---

New crime 3 1 1 -- ---

TV/Revo 23 32 24 -- ---

**Mesa County had a success rate of 63% for Diversion and 81% for Transition*Only successful IRT cases were analyzed.

1-yr Recidivism*: FY11 and FY12Residential

(2687)RDDT

(96)TC

(172)Non

Residential(459)

Diversion 15.7% 16.7% 8.9% 12.4%

Transition 17.6% 13.6% 13.3% ----

CH Score <1.25 10% 0% 0% n/a

*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)

Non Residential

(1517)

Most serious offense

Nonviolent 10% 8% 4% 13% 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 42Avg LSI at intake (Avg CH Score raw)

28.4 (7.3)

33.1 (7.2)

36.5(6.6)

31.2(n/a)

26.8 (n/a)

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%Improvement in LSI score for successes

4 points 5 points 8.7 points n/a 4 points

% Low CH Score <1.25 on CH Score

14%* 17% 7% n/a n/a

% Low LSI Score 11%** <1% 0% <1% 11%

*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– This compares to 52% who were

never regressedOne client went back and forth between residential 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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Successful termination Recidivated Mean LSI Mean Criminal History Score

Recidivism is a felony/misdemeanor in district/county court 1 year after successful program termination. Denver County Court data excluded.

Thank you for your attention