Elizabeth K. Drake, Ph. D. Candidate Washington State University - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

shanta
a path toward criminal justice reform 7 evidence n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Elizabeth K. Drake, Ph. D. Candidate Washington State University PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Elizabeth K. Drake, Ph. D. Candidate Washington State University

play fullscreen
1 / 27
Download Presentation
Elizabeth K. Drake, Ph. D. Candidate Washington State University
337 Views
Download Presentation

Elizabeth K. Drake, Ph. D. Candidate Washington State University

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. A Path Toward Criminal Justice Reform: 7 Evidence-Based Strategies from Lessons Learned in Washington State A Presentation to the Department of Justice Melbourne, AustraliaSeptember 11, 2018 Elizabeth K. Drake, Ph. D. Candidate Washington State University Department of Criminal Justice & Criminology Olympia, Washington USA edrake@wsu.edu

  2. Background #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 Conclusion • About Me • Applied, academic researcher in Washington state • Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) • Non-partisan, objective, rigorous, research for policymakers in the Washington State Legislature • Currently on educational leave • Washington State University • Finishing PhD in Criminal Justice & Criminology • Dissertation Fellowship: examining racial disparities in CJS and implications on risk assessment practices • Research experience & interests • Corrections, sentencing, crime control policies, evidence-based public policy • Program evaluation and quantitative methods 2 of 22 6 of 22

  3. Background #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 Conclusion • About This Presentation • What you’ll learn • 7 evidence-based strategies to reduce the need for incarceration and improve the criminal justice system • Based on my research portfolio and experience in Washington State; no affiliation • What this presentation isn’t • A comprehensive solution for criminal justice reform • Disclaimer • This presentation is rooted in rigorous research to inform practice. Relying on evidence from the literature, however, does not substitute the need for continued evaluation of implemented programs and policies. 3 of 22 6 of 22

  4. Background #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 Conclusion • Washington (WA) State • Olympia: The Capitol Seattle, WA Portland, OR 4 of 22

  5. Background #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 Conclusion • How similar (or dissimilar) are we? • Metrics of comparison Australia Western AUS Washington State United States *Per 100,000 Population 7.17 mil. 2.53 mil. 326 mil. 24 mil. 2.5 mil. Square km 184,673 9.8 mil. 7.7 mil. 33 3 People per sq. km 39 1 • Washington State’s criminal justice system: • Primarily decentralized with local, state, and federal entities (police, courts, and corrections). • Superior court (felonies)—sentences one year or more to prison (Department of Corrections) • District court (misdemeanors)—sentences less than one year to jail (local counties) Incarceration rate* (sentenced to prison) 340 450 216 262 1.1 4.9 1.0 Homicide rate* 3.4 5 of 22

  6. Background #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 Conclusion Prison Incarceration Rates in Washington and the US Washington isn’t the average state 6 • Sentencing Eras • Indeterminate sentencing • Sentencing reform • Tough on crime • Equilibrium United States 5 State Fiscal Impact $675 million (US) more per biennium if Washington had the same incarceration rate as the average state. 4 Incarceration Rate per 1,000 3 Washington 2 1 0 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 6 of 22

  7. Background #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 Conclusion Long-Term Trends in Washington Crime Rates & Taxpayer Costs 150% Percent change from 1980* In 2007, taxpayers spent 116% more on the criminal justice system than in 1980. 125% 100% Taxpayer costs 75% In recent years, costs have begun to decline. 50% 25% Until 2015, crime rates were 45% lower than in 1980. A new FBI metric, however, shows crime rates increased by 1% recently. 0% -25% Crime -50% 1980 1990 2000 2010 7 of 22 * Per capita, dollar estimates are inflation adjusted.

  8. Background #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 Conclusion • #1: Evidence-Based Correctional Interventions • Invest in programs that improve outcomes and pay off for taxpayers www.wsipp.wa.gov • WSIPP Research Approach • 1) What works to improve outcomes? (e.g., crime, employment…) • Identify programs tested rigorously (in WA or other research). • 2) What pays off for taxpayers? • Compute the benefits and costs to the people of Washington for each policy option. • 3) What’s the “risk” (return on investment)? Chance the investment won’t break even. 8 of 22

  9. Background #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 Conclusion #1: Evidence-Based Correctional Interventions A sample of what works to reduce crime (2016 US dollars) Per Participant Net Benefits (Chance WA won’t break even) % Point Change in Crime (# of Studies) Adults Correctional ed (post-secondary) -9% (2)$23,444 (<1%) Vocational education-7% (2) $16,400 (3%) A powerful tool called “Meta-Analysis” allows researchers to systematically combine the findings of all studies (not just one!) to get the average effect of a program. Correctional ed (ABE)-7% (7)$10,843 (3%) Cognitive behavioral tx-4% (42)$7,424 (<1%) Domestic violence tx (Duluth)+1% (6)-$3,500 (76%) Juveniles* • Reentry Report (Bitney et al., 2017) • Reviewed 59 programs in the adult system • 53% showed statistically significant reductions in recidivism • Conducted benefit-cost analysis on 45 programs • 64% showed benefits that outweighed the costs (at least 75% of the time) Functional Family Therapy -11% (8)$25,484 (4%) Multisystemic Therapy -6% (11)$12,742 (28%) Scared Straight+5% (10)-$8,802 (98%) Prevention* Pre-School* (low income)-10% (17)$34,398 (8%) Mentoring* (school-based) -1% (5) $27,375 (26%) 9 of 22 * Programs have a number of other non-crime benefits; all benefits reported here.

  10. Background #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 Conclusion #1: Evidence-Based Correctional Interventions Research lessons learned from hundreds of studies • Since Martinson’s “Nothing Works” four decades ago • Conclusion: Many correctional interventions are cost-effective; some, more than others. • Quality/rigor of research design (and its implementation) matters • Consumers must have a basic understanding of rigor • What makes a good research design? • A valid comparison group • Minimize selection bias, which threaten validity of findings • Directions for future research • Measure outcomes beyond recidivism/crime • Advanced methods (e.g., clustering) to examine variation in groups and contextual effects (e.g., classrooms, prisons) 10 of 22

  11. Background #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 Conclusion #1 6 #2: Program Fidelity Matters Monitor programs and invest in quality assurance Functional Family Therapy 35% 32% • Today, state-funded juvenile court programs have a statewide quality assurance system. • The Department of Corrections has implemented quality assurance for Cognitive Behavioral Treatment. 30% 27% 25% 20% 17% 15% FFT youth (not competent therapists) 18-Month Reconviction Rates FFT youth (competent therapists) 10% Comparison group 5% 0% 11 of 22

  12. Background #3 #2 #4 #5 #6 #7 Conclusion #1 #3: Risk, Need, Responsivity -- the Cornerstone of Corrections Incorporate RNR throughout A pragmatic, evidence-based theory to address crime: Risk principleUse interventions commensurate with risk for re-offense. Evidence that harm can be done by intervening when unnecessary. Need principle Target criminogenic needs such as anti-social attitudes or substance abuse. Emerging research on how and when to address needs. ResponsivityHow and when to respond. Align interventions with abilities and motivation (i.e., specific responsivity). Interventions rooted in cognitive behavioral treatment or social learning (i.e., general responsivity). 12 of 22

  13. Background #3 #2 #4 #5 #6 #7 Conclusion #1 #3: Risk, Need, Responsivity – the Cornerstone of Corrections The “R” in RNR: recidivism trends by risk level 70% • Key takeaways: • Risk prediction can be effective for targeting resources • Recidivism rates have decreased over time • Each bar represents the recidivism rate for an annual cohort of people released from prison. 60% 50% 40% 36-Month Felony Reconviction 30% 20% 10% 0% Risk Level: Low Moderate High Non-Violent High Violent 13 of 22

  14. Background #3 #2 #4 #5 #6 #7 Conclusion #1 #3: Risk, Need, Responsivity – the Cornerstone of Corrections Use a validated, actuarial risk assessment • Essential function used to guide decisions • Pros: Resource management; reduce discretion & bias • Cons: Predicting future behavior; classifies individual based on the group; possible structural racial bias • Must have a high degree of predictive accuracy (validity) • After initial development, process of testing the accuracy of the assessment on a second population • Off-the-shelf or custom-made, the assessment must be validated on the population being served • 4th Generation tools (Andrews et al., 2006) for case management, which allows for re-assessment of dynamic changes. 14 of 22

  15. Background #4 #2 #5 #6 #7 Conclusion #3 #1 # 4: Address Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System Emerging evidence on “cumulative disadvantage” • Racial disparities can be detected: • Directly — race has a direct relationship with the outcome • (e.g., detained prior to trial; conviction; length of sentence) • Indirectly— not through race, but through another variable • (e.g., pretrial detention) indirect disparity (cumulative disadvantage) • Findings: Only 6 studies, which all detect cumulative disadvantage despite detecting no direct effects. • Young black men disadvantaged the most at pretrial stage. Black defendant Pretrial Detention direct disparity Harsher sentence direct disparity 15 of 22

  16. Transparency is critical to avoid further disadvantage. • As risk assessment advances, follow the science on mitigating racial bias. “Blacks…face greater cumulative disadvantages at the pretrial stage.” This finding “highlights the importance of considering the more “subtle” processes contributing to the disproportionate over-representation of Blacks in U.S. prisons” (Wooldredge et al., 2015). Background #4 #2 #5 #6 #7 Conclusion #3 #1 • # 4: Address Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System • My dissertation research Decision making/ers along the criminal justice continuum… Police Prosecutors & Judges Corrections Criminal justice continuum… (outcomes to be examined) • 1) Pretrial • Bail amount • Detention • 2) Charging • Filed (y/n) • # of charges • Severity • Dismissed • 3) Sentencing • Type (prison/sup.) • Length • Departure up/down Police: arrest DOC population 4) Examine cumulative disadvantage from arrest through sentencing. Policy implication: If cumulative disadvantage is detected, bias is incorporated into criminal history records used in risk assessment. 16 of 22

  17. Background #5 #2 #6 #7 Conclusion #3 #4 #1 #5: Juvenile Justice Reform Examine sentencing practices and beyond Evaluation of Washington’s law on automatically transferring youth (below age 18) to adult court. Automatically transferred youth had higher recidivism rates than the comparison youth (Drake, 2013). In 2018, law passed limiting automatic transfer and extending juvenile jurisdiction to age 25 (from 21) for individuals convicted of certain violent offenses. Brain science research shows adolescence extends well into adulthood (mid-twenties). Policy discussions should incorporate this new science and include discussions of culpability. 17 of 22

  18. Background #6 #2 #7 Conclusion #3 #4 #5 #1 66 #6: Effective use of Incarceration Incarceration is evidence-based, but with a narrow focus • Incarceration rate & crime rate (7 studies): Effective, but nuanced. • Effectiveness depends on who is incarcerated. i.e., benefit-cost results vary by level of risk for re-offense. • Punitive incarceration policies are ineffective (three-strikes) • Does not measure other outcomes (i.e., family ties/employment) • Length of stay & recidivism (3 studies): Mixed or marginal, at best. • Marginal reduction in crime for increased length of stay. • Early release study shows that shorter LOS generates about $2 in net benefits per dollar of cost • Confinement for a violation (2 studies): Increased recidivism. • Does not reduce recidivism and may have harmful effects 18 of 22

  19. Background #7 #2 #6 Conclusion #3 #4 #5 #1 #7: Community Supervision & Sentencing Alternatives Supervision is more effective than historically Per Participant Net Benefits (Chance WA won’t break even) % Point Change in Crime (# of Studies) Supervision Type Intensive supervision (with tx)-6% (17)$12,357 (<1%) Swift, certain, fair-4% (11)$20,601 (13%) Risk Need Responsivity-4% (14)$8,161 (2%) Intensive supervision (only) 0% (14) $287 (47%) • Hybrid model of supervision integrates and balances the competing demands of surveillance and treatment models, embracing both authority and social work principles. • Officers are poised uniquely to engage with individuals (as the agent of change), an improvement compared with traditional case management (Lutze, 2014). • Intensive supervision • Must incorporate treatment! • Swift, certain & fair supervision (SCF) or Hawaii’s HOPE • Piloted, tested, statewide implementation, then evaluation (Hamilton et al., 2015). • RNR supervision (e.g., EPICS, STARR) • Effective, but “treatment as usual” has changed. 19 of 22

  20. Background #7 #2 #6 Conclusion #3 #4 #5 #1 #7 Community Supervision & Sentencing Alternatives Less time incarcerated coupled with effective treatment Per Participant Net Benefits (Chance WA won’t break even) % Point Change in Crime (# of Studies) Alternative Drug offender sentencing alt.-10% (1)$21,091 (<1%) Mental health courts-7% (6)$14,347 (4%) Reentry courts-7% (2)$12,136 (5%) Drug courts-10% (72) $8,993 (<1%) DUI courts -9% (6)-$3,408 (81%) • Problem-solving courts • Not all types demonstrate impacts on recidivism • DUI courts are effective, but not cost-effective • Procedural justice in the non-adversarial nature of these courts 20 of 22

  21. Background Conclusion #7 #2 #6 #3 #4 #5 #1 A Path Toward Criminal Justice Reform Evidence-based principles from lessons learned in Washington • Eliminate punitive policies and invest in cognitive/social learning programs • Evidence for deterrence is limited and supports swift and certain, but not severe/punitive (e.g., boot camps, ISP) • Create a culture of investing in and conducting rigorous research • Iterative, ongoing process • Build partnerships with academic community • Embrace champions/leaders as effective change agents • Relationships matter • Culture eats strategy and change is hard • Communicate to practitioners with transparency and research evidence 21 of 22

  22. Background Conclusion #7 #2 #6 #3 #4 #5 #1 A Path Toward Criminal Justice Reform Correctional education: Improve the knowledge base • Implement more rigorous research designs • Less than a dozen rigorous studies • Davis et al., 2013 concur (only 7 of 57 studies) • See general education literature for rigor improvements • Examine the “black box” of correctional education • Studies do not report detail about correctional education including dosage and program characteristics (e.g., curriculum, teacher certifications, classroom characteristics) • Measure more outcomes to understand process of change • Examine thinking and behavior (e.g., motivation, educational gains/skills) 22 of 22

  23. Thank you! • Questions?

  24. Authors works cited • Peer-reviewed publications • Drake, E. (2018). The monetary benefits and costs of community supervision.Invited submission for a special issue: Applying 40 years of “what works” in corrections: Losing or gaining ground. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, (34) 1, 47-68. • Drake, E. & Fumia, D. (2017). Policy essay: Evolution of correctional education evaluations and directions for future research. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(2), 549-561. • Drake, E. (2012). Reducing crime and criminal justice costs: Washington State’s evolving research approach. Justice Research and Policy, (14) 1, 97-115. • Lee, S., Drake, E., Pennucci, A., Bjornstad, G. & Eldovald, T. (2012). Economic evaluation of early childhood education in a policy context. Journal of Children’s Services, (7) 1, 53-63. • VanLandingham, G. & Drake, E. (2012). Results first: Using evidence-based policy models in state policy-making. Public Performance & Management Review, (35) 3, 551–564. • Drake, E., Aos, S. & Miller, M (2009). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice costs: Implications in Washington State. Victims and Offenders, (4), 170–196. • Technical reports • Bitney, K., Drake, E., Grice, J., Hirsch, M. & Lee, S. (2017). The effectiveness of reentry programs for incarcerated persons: Findings for the Washington statewide reentry council. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. • Drake, E., Fumia, D., He, L. (2014). Washington's residential Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative: recidivism & cost analysis. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. • Drake, E. (2013). The effectiveness of declining juvenile court jurisdiction of youth. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. • Drake, E. (2013). Inventory of evidence-based and research-based programs for adult corrections. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. • Aos, S. & Drake, E. (2013). Prison, police, and programs: Evidence-based options that reduce crime and save money. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. • Miller, M., Drake, E. & Nafziger, M. (2013). What works to reduce recidivism by domestic violence offenders? Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. • Drake, E. (2012). Chemical dependency treatment for offenders: A review of the evidence and benefit-cost findings. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. • Drake, E. & Aos, S. (2012). Confinement for technical violations of community supervision: Is there an effect on felony recidivism?. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. • Drake, E. (2011). "What works" in community supervision: Interim report. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. • Drake, E. (2011). Washington State recidivism trends: Adult offenders released from prison (1990 – 2006). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

  25. Authors works cited (cont’d) • Drake, E. (2010). Washington State juvenile court funding: Applying research in a public policy setting. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. • Aos, S. & Drake, E. (2010). WSIPP’s benefit-cost tool for states: Examining policy options in sentencing and corrections. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. • Drake, E., Aos, S. & Barnoski, R. (2010). Washington's Offender Accountability Act: Final report on recidivism outcomes. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. • Drake, E. & Aos, S. (2009). Does sex offender registration and notification reduce crime? A systematic review of the research literature. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. • Drake, E., Barnoski, R., & Aos, S. (2009). Increased earned release from prison: Impacts of a 2003 law on recidivism and crime costs, revised. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. • Drake, E. & Barnoski, R. (2009). New risk instrument for offenders improves classification decisions. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. • Barnoski, R. & Drake, E. (2007). Washington's Offender Accountability Act: Department of Corrections' static risk instrument. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. • Drake, E. (2006). Washington's Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative: An update on recidivism findings. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. • Aos, S., Miller, M. & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. • Aos, S., Miller, M. & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based adult corrections programs: What works and what does not. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. • Other works cited • Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 7-27. • Davis, L. M., Bozick, R., Steele, J. L., Saunders, J., & Miles, J. N. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of correctional education: A meta-analysis of programs that provide education to incarcerated adults. Rand Corporation. • Campbell, C. M. (2016). It’s not technically a crime: Investigating the relationship between technical violations and new crime. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27(7), 643-667. • Durlauf, S.N., and Nagin, D. S. "Imprisonment and crime: Can both be reduced?." Criminology & Public Policy 10, no. 1 (2011): 13-54. • Hamilton, Z., Campbell, C. M., van Wormer, J., Kigerl, A., & Posey, B. (2016). Impact of swift and certain sanctions: Evaluation of Washington State's policy for offenders on community supervision. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(4), 1009-1072. • Lowenkamp, C. T., Paler, J., Smith, P., & Latessa, E. J. (2006). Adhering to the risk and need principles: Does it matter for supervision-based programs. Fed. Probation, 70, 3.Duwe; Lipsey and Cullen; Gendreau; • Lutze, F. E. (2013). Professional lives of community corrections officers: The invisible side of reentry. SAGE Publications.

  26. Background Conclusion #7 #2 #6 #3 #4 #5 #1 A Path Toward Criminal Justice Reform Strategies and more strategies not mentioned today … 26 of 22

  27. Background Conclusion #7 #2 #6 #3 #4 #5 #1 A Path Toward Criminal Justice Reform Evidence-based sentencing grid • Policy Goal: Develop an evidence-based sentencing grid, rooted in commonly-agreed on principles of punishment, while maintaining fairness and equality for all people. • (1) Convene stakeholders to examine philosophical underpinnings • Shift from punishment toward change/opportunity • Examine proportionality (i.e., seriousness, criminal history) and parsimony (i.e., least imposing sanction) • Promote fairness and equity • (2) Use research evidence to re-design who should be incarcerated and for how long • Incarceration is effective when applied narrowly. Punitive sentences are marginally effective at best and criminogenic at worst. 27 of 22