4what works adolescent

8/7/2019 4What Works Adolescent

1/35

What Works?What Works?Reducing Criminal OffendingReducing Criminal Offending


2/35

Reasons for IncarcerationReasons for Incarceration

PunishmentPunishment

Justice for VictimJustice for Victim

IncapacitationIncapacitationImpact on Potential OffendersImpact on Potential Offenders

Reduction of RecidivismReduction of Recidivism


3/35

Impact of More Severe Sanctions onImpact of More Severe Sanctions on

RecidivismRecidivism

Incarceration vs. ProbationIncarceration vs. Probation

Intermediate Sanctions vs.Intermediate Sanctions vs.Standard SupervisionStandard Supervision

(Smith, 2002)(Smith, 2002)


4/35

Characteristics of StudiesCharacteristics of Studies

117 Studies117 Studies

N = 442,471N = 442,471(Smith, 2002)(Smith, 2002)


5/35

Impact of Incarceration onImpact of Incarceration on

RecidivismRecidivism

N = 268,806N = 268,806

68% American Studies68% American Studies

No Change in RecidivismNo Change in Recidivism

or Slight Increase in Recidivismor Slight Increase in Recidivism

(Smith, 2002)(Smith, 2002)


6/35

High Quality vs. Low Quality StudiesHigh Quality vs. Low Quality Studies

High QualityHigh Quality

Random AssignmentRandom Assignment

Comparison Group DesignsComparison Group DesignsAgeAge

Criminal HistoryCriminal History

Antisocial ValuesAntisocial Values

(Smith, 2002)(Smith, 2002)


7/35

Random Assignment StudiesRandom Assignment Studies

2 Studies2 Studies

Incarceration Vs CommunityIncarceration Vs Community

Slight increases in recidivismSlight increases in recidivism

(Smith, 2002)(Smith, 2002)


8/35

Intermediate SanctionsIntermediate Sanctions

Electronic MonitoringElectronic MonitoringFinesFinesRestitutionRestitutionIntensive SurveillanceIntensive SurveillanceScared StraightScared StraightDrug TestingDrug Testing

Boot campBoot camp(Smith, 2002)(Smith, 2002)


9/35

Intermediate Sanctions vs. StandardIntermediate Sanctions vs. Standard

SupervisionSupervision

N = 66,500N = 66,500

American Studies 80%American Studies 80%

Slight Decrease in RecidivismSlight Decrease in Recidivism

Or No DifferenceOr No Difference


10/35

Boot Camps Vs. RestitutionBoot Camps Vs. Restitution

Scared StraightScared Straight No ImpactNo Impact

Boot campsBoot camps No ImpactNo Impact

RestitutionRestitution 5% Decrease5% Decrease

(Latimer et al., 2001; MacKenzie et al., 2001)(Latimer et al., 2001; MacKenzie et al., 2001)


11/35

Same FindingsSame Findings

Juveniles vs. AdultsJuveniles vs. Adults

Men or Women (maybe)Men or Women (maybe)

White or Minority Race (few studies)White or Minority Race (few studies)

Low and High Risk OffendersLow and High Risk Offenders

(Smith, 2002)(Smith, 2002)


12/35

WomenWomen

More Severe PunishmentMore Severe Punishment

May Increase Recidivism in Women MoreMay Increase Recidivism in Women More

than Menthan Men

(Smith, 2002)(Smith, 2002)


13/35

ExceptionException

Intensive Supervision plus treatmentIntensive Supervision plus treatment

Slight decrease in recidivism (10%)Slight decrease in recidivism (10%)

(Smith, 2002)(Smith, 2002)


14/35

Impact of Treatment Vs. SanctionsImpact of Treatment Vs. Sanctions

(Andrews, 1998)(Andrews, 1998)

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Treatment

Sanctions


15/35

Impact of Treatment Vs. SanctionsImpact of Treatment Vs. Sanctions

Young OffendersYoung Offenders

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

Criminal

SanctionsTreatment

Dowden & Andrews, 1999


16/35

Impact of Appropriate Vs.Impact of Appropriate Vs.

Inappropriate TreatmentInappropriate Treatment


-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Combined Tx

Appropriate

Inappropriate

Sanctions


17/35

Type of TreatmentType of Treatment

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Non Behavioral

CognitiveBehavioral

Andrew, 1994


18/35

Type of Treatment & Young OffendersType of Treatment & Young Offenders

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Non Behavioral

CognitiveBehavioral

Dowden & Andrews, 1999


19/35

All meta-analyses on offender treatmentAll meta-analyses on offender treatmenthave a positive mean effect size.have a positive mean effect size.

(Losel, 1995)(Losel, 1995)


20/35

Appropriate TreatmentAppropriate Treatment

Higher Risk More IntensiveHigher Risk More Intensive

Targets Criminogenic NeedsTargets Criminogenic Needs

Uses Cognitive-Behavioral TreatmentUses Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment

Implement Treatment As DesignedImplement Treatment As Designed



21/35

Targeting Criminogenic NeedsTargeting Criminogenic Needs


22/35

Criminogenic NeedsCriminogenic Needs

CriminogenicCriminogenic Non CriminogenicNon Criminogenic

Antisocial AttitudesAntisocial Attitudes Self-EsteemSelf-EsteemAntisocial FriendsAntisocial Friends AnxietyAnxiety

Substance AbuseSubstance Abuse DepressionDepression

ImpulsivityImpulsivity


23/35

Targeting Criminogenic NeedsTargeting Criminogenic Needs

-0.05

0

0.05

0.10.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Targets 1 - 3Noncriminogenic Needs

Targets 4 - 6CriminogenicNeeds

Gendreau, French & Taylor, 2002


24/35

Self Esteem Vs. Criminogenic NeedsSelf Esteem Vs. Criminogenic Needs

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.10.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Self Esteem

CriminogenicNeeds


25/35

What WorksWhat Works

Higher Risk OffendersHigher Risk Offenders

At least 2 sessions per weekAt least 2 sessions per week

Smaller groupsSmaller groups Implementation MonitoredImplementation Monitored

Staff Trained on Cognitive-Behavioral TxStaff Trained on Cognitive-Behavioral Tx

Higher Proportion of Treatment CompletersHigher Proportion of Treatment Completers


26/35

Programming That Doesnt WorkProgramming That Doesnt Work

PsychodynamicPsychodynamic

Non-directive/Client-centeredNon-directive/Client-centered

Disease ModelDisease Model



27/35

Impact of Cognitive Self-ChangeImpact of Cognitive Self-Change

ProgramProgram LengthLength New Accusations After YearsNew Accusations After Years

Of Time (Mo.)Of Time (Mo.) 11 22 33

No treatmentNo treatment 49%49% 71%71% 77%77%

1 61 6 54%54% 67%67% 80%80%

7 +7 + 25%25% 42%42% 46%46%

(Bush, 1995)(Bush, 1995)

I t f C iti S lf ChI t f C iti S lf Ch


28/35

Impact of Cognitive Self-ChangeImpact of Cognitive Self-Change

ProgramProgram

(Bush, 1995)(Bush, 1995)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

7+ mo.

0


29/35

ATSA Collaborative StudyATSA Collaborative Study

N = 43 studiesN = 43 studies

All treated between 1965 1999All treated between 1965 1999 80% treated after 198080% treated after 1980

9,316 subjects9,316 subjects

23 Institutional programs23 Institutional programs 16 Community programs16 Community programs

3 both3 both


30/35

ATSA Collaborative StudyATSA Collaborative Study

Recidivism DataRecidivism DataTreatedTreated UntreatedUntreated OddsOdds

RatioRatio

Only currentOnly current

programsprograms

SexualSexual 9.9%9.9% 17.3%17.3% .60.60

GeneralGeneral 32.3%32.3% 51.3%51.3% .57.57


31/35

Psychopathy: TreatmentPsychopathy: Treatment


32/35

Program for personality disordered offendersProgram for personality disordered offenders "Maxwell Jones" Therapeutic Community"Maxwell Jones" Therapeutic Community

Minimum 2 yrs in programMinimum 2 yrs in program Mean follow-up after release = 8 yrs, 4 monthsMean follow-up after release = 8 yrs, 4 months Psychopaths defined by PCL-R score of 27Psychopaths defined by PCL-R score of 27 PCL-R coded from files only (r = .96)PCL-R coded from files only (r = .96)

176 treated patients; 146 untreated patients176 treated patients; 146 untreated patients Mean time to failure = 47 monthsMean time to failure = 47 months

(Rice, Harris, & Cormier, 1992)

Psychopathy and Recidivism After Treatment


33/35


34/35

Psychopathy & TreatmentPsychopathy & Treatment

PsychopathsPsychopaths

TreatedTreated

77%77%

UntreatedUntreated 55%55%

(Harris, Rice et al., 1994)(Harris, Rice et al., 1994)


35/35

Psychopathy, Treatment, and ReconvictionsPsychopathy, Treatment, and Reconvictions

in HMP Servicein HMP Service

Tx anger-management, social skills

24-month reconviction rate

(Hare, Clark, Grann, & Thornton, 2000)Hare, Clark, Grann, & Thornton, 2000)

4what works adolescent

Documents