Evidence-Based Sentencing to Reduce Recidivism & Hold O - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Evidence-Based Sentencing to Reduce Recidivism & Hold Offenders Accountable

Louisiana Judicial ConferenceThe BluffsOctober 18-20, 2012

Judge Roger K. Warren (Ret.)Slide2

“What is done [today] in corrections would be grounds for malpractice in medicine.”

(2002) Latessa, Cullen, and Gendreau, “Beyond Correctional Quackery…”

2Slide3

3

Top concerns of state trial judges in felony cases:

High rates of recidivism

Ineffectiveness of traditional probation supervision in reducing recidivism

Absence of effective community corrections programs

Restrictions on judicial discretionSlide4

Top two reform objectives:

Reduce recidivism through expanded use of evidence-based practices, programs that work, and offender risk and needs assessment tools Promote the development, funding, and utilization of community-based alternatives to incarceration for appropriate offenders Slide5

5

Evidence Based Practice (EBP)EBP: professional practices supported by the “best research evidence”Best research evidence:Well-matched control groups

Consistent results across multiple studies

Systematic analysis (meta-analysis) Slide6

Washington State Institute

for Public Policy Meta-analysis of 571 studies“Cautious” approachAdult EB programs cut recidivism 10-20%

EB programs have benefit/cost ratio of 2.5:1

Moderate increase in EBP would avoid 2 new prisons, save $2.1 billion, and reduce crime rate by 8%

.Slide7

State of Maryland

Proactive Community Supervision

% of Offenders

New Arrests

RevocationsSlide8

Evidence-Based Sentencing

(EBS)The application of Principles of EBPto the sentencing process for thepurpose of reducing recidivism andholding offenders accountable

8Slide9

EBS & Purposes of Sentencing

“Just Deserts:” penalty or punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense & culpability of the offender; accountabilityPublic Safety

Rehabilitation

Specific Deterrence

Incapacitation/Control

General Deterrence

Restitution/Restoration

9

Risk Reduction & Management Slide10

10

Three Basic Principles of EBPRisk Principle (Who)Needs Principle (What)Treatment & Responsivity

Principles (What Works & How)Slide11

Risk Principle

(Who)

The level of supervision or services should be matched to the risk level of the offender: i.e., more intensive supervision and services should be reserved for higher risk offenders. Slide12

Potential Impact on Recidivism

Low

Low

Medium

Medium

Medium

High

High

High-

Extreme

High

Extreme

High

Recidivism rates absent treatment

Likely recidivism with effective correctional

interventionSlide13

Travis Co., Texas:

Impact of Supervision by RiskRisk Level% Re-arrest

% Change

in Rate

Pre-EBP

1/06-6/06

N = 1287

Post-EBP

7/07-10/07

N = 614

Low

26%

6%

-77%

Medium

26%

13%

-50%

High

34%

31%

-9%

Overall

29%

24%

-17%Slide14

Needs Principle

(What)

The targets for interventions should be those offender characteristics that have the most effect on the likelihood of re-offending.Slide15

Risk of Heart Attack

Elevated LDL and low HDL levels Smoking Diabetes

Hypertension

Abdominal obesity

Psychosocial (i.e., stress or depression)

Failure to eat fruits and vegetables daily

Failure to exercise Slide16

16

Dynamic Risk Factors (Criminogenic

Needs)

Anti-social attitudes

Anti-social friends and peers

Anti-social personality pattern

Family/marital

Substance abuse

Education

Employment

Anti-social leisure activities Slide17

Anti-Social Personality Pattern

Lack of self-controlRisk takingImpulsivePoor problem solvingLack of empathyNarcissistic Anger and hostilitySlide18

Non-Risk Factors

(not likely to affect future crime)Anxiety/stressLow self esteem

Intelligence

Health and physical conditioning

Mental healthSlide19

Risk/Needs Assessment

1st generation: subjective professional/clinical judgment2nd generation: actuarial, static risk factors3rd generation: actuarial, dynamic risk factors

4

th

generation: incorporate case planning featuresSlide20

Actuarial Risk/Needs Assessment (RNA)

The engine that drives evidence-based recidivism reduction strategiesMuch more accurate in predicting recidivismIdentifies dynamic risk factorsRisk is dynamic; risk scores are static

Intended to inform not replace professional judgmentSlide21

21

“Resolution 7 In Support of the Guiding Principles on Using Risk and Needs Assessment Information in the Sentencing Process”

The Conference of Chief Justices

“endorses the guiding principles described in the National Working Group’s report” and

“encourages state and local courts ... to work with their justice system partners to incorporate risk and needs assessment information into the sentencing process.”

Slide22

Malenchik v. State of Indiana

(928 N.E.2d 564 (2010))

“Evidence-based assessment instruments can be significant sources of valuable information for judicial consideration in deciding whether to suspend all or part of a sentence, how to design a probation program for the offender, whether to assign an offender to alternative treatment facilities or programs, and other such corollary sentencing matters.”

22Slide23

Using RNA Information at Sentencing: 9 Guiding Principles*

# 1: For purpose of effectively managing and reducing the risk of recidivism# 2: To determine amenability for probation supervision

#3: To establish appropriate conditions of probation

23

*

NCSC,

Using Offender Risk and Needs Assessment Information at Sentencing

(2011), available at

http://www.ncsconline.org/csi/analysis.html

. Slide24

Amenability to Probation Supervision

Risk level (low & medium)High risk offenders may also be amenable to probation supervisionAn amenability determination requires a qualitative assessment of whether the offender can be safely and effectively supervised in the community

24Slide25

Use of RNA Information in Setting Probation Conditions

Level and length of probation supervisionNature and intensity of treatment conditions to address specific criminogenic needs (dynamic risk factors) Nature and intensity of

control conditions

to monitor, manage, or control the risk of recidivism

In the absence of reliable RNA, wherever possible, courts should defer to probation in setting terms and conditions

25Slide26

Malenchik v. State of Indiana

(928 N.E.2d 564 (2010))

The court noted, however, that risk/needs tools were “never designed to assist in

establishing the just penalty” and ruled specifically that risk assessment scores cannot serve as aggravating or mitigating circumstances in determining the appropriate length of a prison sentence.

26Slide27

Using RNA Information at Sentencing: Other Principles

# 4: The importance of educating counsel and other stakeholders# 5: Encouraging use of RNA information by counsel and discouraging plea negotiations (especially of probation conditions) in the absence of RNA information

# 8: Determining the format & content of assessment/pre-sentence investigation reports

27Slide28

Treatment Principle

(What works)Judges should “educate themselves about the effectiveness of community based corrections programs in their jurisdictions,” and “advocate and … make use of those programs shown to be effective in reducing recidivism.”

Resolution No. 12Slide29

Treatment Principle

(What works)The most effective interventions in reducing recidivism among medium and high risk offenders:

target offenders’ most critical risk factors, and

utilize

cognitive behavioral

strategies Slide30

Behavioral Strategies:

Behaviors Have ConsequencesPositiveRewards/Positive Reinforcement Incentives

4:1 ratio

Negative

Swift, certain, and proportionate (fair) sanctions

Severe sanctions not necessarySlide31

Behavioral Strategies Also Involve

Role modelsDemonstrationRole playFeedback

Skill practiceSlide32

Behavioral v. Non-Behavioral

% Reduced Recidivism

K=297

K=77Slide33

Sometimes Aware

Behavior

Visible

Thoughts Feelings

Cognitive Structure

(Beliefs and Attitudes)

Beneath the SurfaceSlide34

28-50% reduction in recidivism

compared to traditional probation

T4C: Recidivism RatesSlide35

35

What Doesn't Work?Non-Behavioral StrategiesShaming programs Drug education programs

Drug prevention classes focused on fear or emotional appeal

Non skill-based education programs

Non-action oriented group counseling

Bibliotherapy

Freudian approaches

Talking cures

Vague, unstructured rehabilitation programs

Self-esteem programsSlide36

What Doesn’t Work:

Traditional Sanctions AlonePunishment, sanctions, or incarcerationSpecific deterrence, or fear-based programs, e.g., Scared Straight

Physical challenge programs

Military models of discipline and physical fitness - Boot Camps

Intensive supervision without treatmentSlide37

The Responsivity

PrincipleBoth the intervention (treatment,supervision, or interaction), and

personnel delivering the

intervention, must be matched to

certain characteristics of the

individual offender.Slide38

Responsivity Factors:

Offender CharacteristicsGenderLiteracy

Intelligence

Mental Health

MotivationSlide39

Promoting Offender Motivation

Coerced Treatment

Extrinsic Intrinsic Motivation

Relationship & Engagement

Stages of Change

Procedural Fairness

Motivational Interviewing Slide40

Stages

of Change

(Ready for

change)

ENTER

HERE

EXIT?

Relapse

Maintenance

Pre-Contemplation

(Denial

)

Contemplation

(“Yes but...”)

Action

LASTING EXIT

(Treatment)Slide41

Responses to Stages

(Ready for

change)

ENTER

HERE

EXIT?

Relapse

Maintenance

Pre-Contemplation

(Denial

)

Contemplation

(“Yes but...”)

Action

LASTING EXIT

(Treatment)

Promote Self-Diagnosis

Increase Ambivalence

Practical Strategies

Relapse Prevention

Avoid DemoralizationSlide42

Procedural Fairness

Research shows that there is improvedcompliance and motivation when theoffender views the court process as“fair”:

Views bench as impartial

Has an opportunity to participate

Is treated with respect

Trusts the motives of the decision makerSlide43

Motivational Interviewing

Use open-ended questions Listen reflectively Develop discrepancy/dissonanceSupport self-efficacy

Roll with resistance; deflection

Avoid argument, lecture, shaming, threats, or sympathizing Slide44

Exercise: A Framework for An EB Probation Violations Policy

Identify 5-6 key components of an EB approach?E.g., how would this framework provide for an appropriate use of sanctions?What administrative authority should probation have regarding sanctions & incentives? Slide45

Components of an EB Violation Policy

One size does not fit all violationsNature and severity of violationCurrent risk level

Extent of prior compliance

Criminal history

Reassessment of treatment plan

Incentives and positive reinforcement to promote future compliance

Graduated continuum of both sanctions and services

Swift, certain, and proportionate sanctions

Administrative sanctioning policy that allows for flexibility by probationSlide46

Revocation Proceedings

“Revocation is an appropriate response to a violation when a reassessment of the offender’s dynamic risk factors in light of the offender’s overall criminal history and record of probation compliance and non-compliance determines that the offender can no longer be safely and effectively supervised in the community.”

46Slide47

EBS for Drug Offenders

Low Risk (Pro-Social)

High Risk (Anti-Social)

High Need

(Substance

Addiction)

Low level supervision

Intensive S/A

Tx

Compliance is short-

term goal

Abstinence is long-

term goal

Emphasize positive

reinforcement

Intensive supervision (DRUG CT)

Intensive S/A, Cog, & other

Tx

Compliance is short-term goal

Abstinence is long-term goal

Emphasize positive reinforcement

Strict monitoring/control

conditions

Low Need

(Substance

abuse or

misuse)

Low level supervision

Low level services

Most likely to respond

to sanctions

Intensive supervision

Intensive Cog & other

Tx

Compliance & abstinence are

short-term goals

Emphasize positive reinforce-

ment

and sanctions (HOPE)

Strict monitoring/control

conditions

Minimal level of incarcerationSlide48

Evidence-Based Sentencing to Reduce Recidivism & Hold Offenders Accountable

Louisiana Judicial ConferenceThe BluffsOctober 18-20, 2012

Judge Roger K. Warren (Ret.)