Evidenced Based Practices

1. Evidenced Based Practices The “What Works” With Criminal Offenders

2. Prior to EBP • The movement was “Nothing Works” • 1974 Martinson “rehabilitation has no real appreciable effect on recidivism” • Other researchers decided to take Martinson on and re-study his work • 1975 Palmer looked at 82 studies and concluded 48% had reduced recidivism

3. “Meta-analysis” • The combined study of numerous studies took place • “PEI” Principles of Effective Intervention began to take form • 1990 Andrews et al found PEI based on the premise that correctional interventions have been successful in reducing recidivism

4. 4 Principles of Effective Intervention • Risk Principle tells us WHO to target • Those with highest risk • Need Principle tells us WHAT to target • Criminogenic needs • Responsivity Principle tells us HOW to target • Remove barriers Fidelity/Integrity Principle tells us to do it “Right”

5. Risk Principle • Best way to assess risk to reoffend is to use an “actuarial assessment” such as the LSIR (Level of Services Inventory –revised) • Then match level of risk to appropriate level of intervention • Continued research has supported the importance of targeting risk, criminogenic needs, and the dosage applied. (Andrews et al., Andrews and Dowden, Lipsey and Wilson, Lowenkamp, Latessa, and Holsinger)

6. Risk Principle • 1999 Andrews and Dowden findings from meta-analysis study demonstrated 19% reduction in recidivism when programs adhered to the risk principle and when deviated 4% increase • Further studies show that intensively supervising low risk offenders increases recidivism

7. Potential Impact on Recidivism Maximum recidivism reduction potential area

8. Risk Principle • LSIR—10 domains/54 items • Criminal History 10 (static; does not change) • Education/Employment 10 • Financial 2 • Family/Marital 4 • Accommodation 3 • Leisure and Recreation 2 • Companions 5 • Alcohol and Drugs 9 • Emotional Personal 5 • Attitudes and Orientation 4

9. Risk Principle • The higher the LSIR score, the higher the risk to reoffend • Cut-off scores are established to determine supervision levels • The domains with the highest scores in criminogenic needs tells us where to target the programming to be applied • High scores in attitudes and orientation, companions, alcohol and drugs for example are addressed through cognitive intervention

10. Need Principle • What are “Criminogenic” Needs? • BIG 4 • Antisocial Personality • Antisocial Cognitions, Attitudes, Beliefs and Values • Antisocial Peers • History of Antisocial Behavior (History of) • Others include • Substance Abuse • Employment/Education • Low family affection (Andrews/Bonta 1994)

11. Need Principle • Non-Criminogenic Needs • Self Esteem • Mental Health Problems • Maturity Level • History of trauma/victimization • Poverty • Lack of Housing

12. Targeting Criminogenic Need: Results from Meta-Analyses 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

13. Responsivity Principle • What gets in the way of the client benefitting from treatment • Individual learning styles • Barriers need to be removed; acute MH, child care, transportation, gender issues • Cognitive intervention proves to work best with criminal offenders

14. How important is Appropriate Treatment? (Andrews & Zinger)

15. Fidelity/Integrity Principle • Quality Programming • Training of staff • Supervision of staff • Evaluation of staff • Inter-rater reliability; replicable

16. “What Works” • No longer one size fits all • No longer guided by “gut feelings” • Scientific/actuarial based risk assessments • Motivational interviewing and relationship building are key • Case plan around criminogenic needs • Addressing behavior change through cognitive approach has proven successful • Offenders still must be held responsible • Hybrid approach; Firm but Fair

17. What Works • Recommended style is the “Firm but Fair” approach • Otherwise known as the “Hybrid Approach” • This is not about substituting accountability for social work; it is a balance of addressing risk and needs while at the same time holding the offender responsible.

18. Examples of EBP or “What Works” in Johnson County CJ System • LSIR • YLS-CMI • PACT • SB 14 Strategies

19. LSIR Implementation • Staff become trained • This occurred in Johnson County in 2003 (pilot project) • Once trained, use involves: • Structured interview w/offender • File review • Collateral information (family, other professionals) • Once information gathered, scoring is done • Risk classification is made • Case plan is developed/programming recommendations • Over time, change (hopefully reduction in risk to community) can be observed if re-assessment is conducted

20. LSIR Implementation • Initial 2005 data provided by Johnson County revealed: • Sample consisted of the “training cases” • Statistically significant relationship between total LSI score and the likelihood of case revocation • Used as basis for cut-off scores to determine what’s “high” vs. “low” risk, for example

21. Study of cases through 2007 • 5,415 cases • Data from longer time period (2003 to 2007) • Utilizes case outcome (‘Successful’ vs. ‘Unsuccessful’ termination) as the outcome variable • Data come from both Court Services and Community Corrections in Johnson County

22. LSIR Results • Statistically significant correlation of .292 • This is comparable to what other published literature has found • Indicates that as one’s LSI-R score increases, so does the likelihood of unsuccessful discharge from supervision • While the previous report (2005) also revealed acceptable and statistically significant results, the correlation was not as strong as the current study’s. • Why? Experience with the tool, and more data

23. From the original research, several risk categories were implemented and remain in place today • Score of 0 to 8 = Court Services administrative supervision • Score of 9 to 16 = Court Services standard supervision • Score of 17 to 24 = Community Corrections ISP III • Score of 25 to 32 = Community Corrections ISP II • Score of 33+ = Community Corrections ISP I • (Residential treatment, Therapeutic Community, Boot Camp)

24. Percent failing by LSI-R Categorization

25. Revoke + Incarceration Rates* by Year: Court Services

26. Revoke + Incarceration Rates* by Year: Community Corrections

27. Conclusions/Next steps • The predictive validity of the LSI-R was demonstrated • The composite score is statistically linked to odds of outcome • Differentiates between several risk levels • The risk principle can be implemented • Not as clear re: effect on case revocation • A possible pattern (downward revocation rates) may be emerging, particularly for Community Corrections; Not as clear for Court Services • Appears to be an effect on revocation + transfer to DOC, post-LSI-R implementation • Recommend continued use of LSI-R • Continue study of data –new 2008 stats being completed

28. Implementation of the YLS-CMI Juvenile System Risk Assessment Tool • First implemented by JJA for Community Corrections • In 2007Jo Co Court Services asked to be trained and serve as a pilot. • All staff trained and tool fully implemented effective June 2008

29. Juvenile YMS-CMI • Differences between LSIR and YMS • Involves both parent and youth volunteer • Cut –off scores set by Dr. Pealer JJA analysis • Decisions have not yet been made to have juvenile offenders who score at a certain range to be assigned to the particular office for supervision as in adult pilot.

30. Risk Levels for Johnson County

31. Need Levels for Johnson County

32. Introduction of the PACT Positive Achievement Change Tool • July 1, 2009 new administration at JIAC • Current tool used at JIAC is the MAYSI, which primarily assesses for mental health related issues • PACT implemented July 2009 for a broader assessment for JIAC related decisions i.e., case management, diversion, youth court • YLS-CMI still in place for those adjudicated and placed on probation supervision • Juvenile detention implemented the DRAI

33. Other Evidenced Based Practices in place at Court Services • Motivational Interviewing • Cognitive Skills based groups such as “Thinking for a Change” • Juvenile referrals to Functional Family Therapy, Aggression Replacement Training and Girls Circle (all evidence based) • Some programming has been eliminated

34. JOHNSON COUNTY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS SB 14 • Purpose of SB 14 • Grants to local jurisdictions to encourage reduction in revocations to the Kansas Dept of Corrections for technical violations • All programming must target high risk offenders • All programming must employ EBP

35. JOHNSON COUNTY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS REVOCATION STATISTICS

36. Implementing “What Works” at Community Corrections • All staff have been trained in EBP • All case management staff have been trained in Advanced Communication and Motivational Strategies (ACMS) • All operations staff have been trained in Cognitive Reflective Communication (CRC) • All case management staff are LSI-R certified • All staff have been introduced to the cognitive skills program

37. Implementing “What Works” at Community Corrections • Hired 1.5 more cognitive facilitators (for a total of 2.5) • Conduct more cognitive groups • Responsive to client needs (short or long program, time of day, etc.) • Hold individual cognitive sessions • Maintained a Relapse Prevention Specialist • Conduct the Financial Peace University program for clients and their significant others

38. Implementing “What Works” at Community Corrections • Implemented a manufacturing certification program at the Adult Residential Center • Implemented other quality assurance processes to ensure that staff are focusing their work where most needed • Developed the Systems Implementation Team

39. EBP and Incarceration • PEW Study March 2009 “One in 31” indicates 1in 31 of American population is under some form of correctional supervision • In Kansas it is 1 in 53 • 1in100 are in jail or prison in America • Sentencing laws of the 1980’s and 1990’s are much of the reason for this system overload • Cost issue cannot be ignored • Many have called to focus on placing the most dangerous in incarceration

40. EBP and Incarceration • The Diminishing Effects of Incarceration • Diminishing return means: that the larger the group of offenders incarcerated the lower the crime reduction due to the “low tier” offender was not going to recidivate anyway. • A “tipping point is reached” • Crime is an occupation of the young, so pay off diminishes as population ages • Deterrence is more a function of “swiftness and severity” and not the length of sentence

41. EBP and Incarceration • This does NOT mean that incarceration does not lower crime rates • Depending on the stat, some say incarceration has resulted in 35% drop in crime and others say 10% drop in crime • Generally, it is a combination of factors: economy, changes in the drug climate, and changes in policing style, as well as, use of incarceration • The right person in the right bed for the right amount of time

42. Best Practice Recommendations from the PEW Study • Sort offenders by risk to public safety to determine appropriate levels of supervision;  • Base intervention programs on sound research about what works to reduce recidivism; • Harness advances in supervision technology such as electronic monitoring and rapid-result alcohol and drug tests (SCRAM); • Impose swift and certain sanctions for offenders who break the rules of their release but who do not commit new crimes; and • Create incentives for offenders and supervision agencies to succeed, and monitor their performance.

43. Next Steps for Johnson County Projects approved by the Criminal Justice Advisory Council: Reentry Project Criminal Justice – Mental Health Intercept Study Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI)

44. Johnson County Reentry Project • Reentry Task Force established as a subcommittee of the Criminal Justice Advisory Council in May 2009 • First attempt at Second Chance Act dollars was not funded; plan to continue to pursue funding efforts • Key components: • Assessment—Use of LSIR combined with professionals screening candidates in conjunction with mental health screening • Establishment of a “FACT” Team (Forensic Assertive Community Treatment) Multi-disciplinary team comprised of corrections, mental health, substance abuse and employment specialists lead by a team leader and a part-time nurse practitioner • Targets for change—base on addressing criminogenic needs (Big 4 anti-social values, criminal peers, low self control and poor problem solving skills), as well as employment, housing, family ties, substance abuse, and aftercare support systems in place • Programming starts in the jail and follows the inmate into the community upon release

45. Criminal Justice-Mental Health Intercept Study Currently a leadership team, work team and data team in place analyzing the current system to determine key intercepts where services can be improved to reduce the number of mentally ill in our justice system Grant funded through Greater Kansas City Health Foundation UCS is the project facilitator Council of State Governments Justice Center is providing consulting

46. JDAI Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative • CJAC has approved the formation of a JDAI Task Force • Goals will include analysis of data of juvenile detention population • Low level offenders and technical violators are examples of offenders who should be placed in alternative programming • JDAI has proven to reduce detention population in ways that protect or even enhance public safety (27 states/110 sites)

47. SYSTEM-WIDE implementation of Evidenced Based Practices in Johnson County will require: • Dynamic valid assessment processes have to be in place (LSIR, YLS and PACT) • Staff have to be trained in the assessment process (even those who don’t use it) • All staff have to believe in the process – be willing to do it & want to do it right • Commitment to fidelity is essential

48. Key to future effectiveness: • Allowing research to drive new strategies • Educating the public • Educating all staff • Program integrity/fidelity • Balancing/mitigating prison environment & therapeutic efforts • Assessment – measuring before, during, after • Validating all procedures • Comprehensive services (systemic perspective)