From “Nothing Works” to “What

Works” to “Making it Work”

From “Nothing Works” to “What

Works” to “Making it Work”

James BontaJames Bonta

Oporto, Portugal - April, 2008

2

Outline of the Presentation

1. The Dark Ages: 1975 to 1990

“Nothing Works”

2. The Renaissance Period: 1990 to 2000

“What Works”

3. The Reality Check: 2000 to ?

“Making it Work”

3

Before the Plunge into Darkness

Review N % Effective

Kirby (1954) 4 75

Bailey (1966) 22 60

Logan (1972)* 18 50

N = number of studies reviewed* Logan reviewed 100 studies, but only 18 were studies

of counseling/therapy with a comparison group

“ l i t t l e r e a s o n t o h o p e t h a t

w e h a v e… f o u n d a s u r e

w a y o f r e d u c in g r e c id i v i sm

t h r o u g h r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ”

The Darkness Descends

5

“Nothing Works”

Review N % Effective

Lipton et al. (1975) 231 40-60

Findings not new but the consequences were…

6

Consequences of Nothing Works “Getting Tough”

• Utilitarian Models of Crime• Since crime pays, up the costs• Get tough• U.S. has ¼ of world prison

population (7 million under correctional supervision)

• Just Deserts• Punishment as a deserved social

value; It is the “fair” thing to do• Has this worked?

7

“Getting Tough” and Recidivism

Sanction φφφφ N

Prison vs Community Adults (71) -.07* 76,287

Juveniles (24) -.09* 4,118

Longer Sentence Adults (228) -.03* 68,303

Juveniles (5) .00 38,862

Intermediate Sanctions Adults (104) .02 44,870

Juveniles (59) .00 11,141

Smith et al., 2002

8

Checklist for Effective Punishment

⇒ Inhibits behavior - does not teach new behavior

⇒ Vary punishments (few universal punishers)

⇒ Immediate

⇒ Appropriate intensity

⇒ Type of person works best with:

* non-impulsive, future oriented

* average to above average IQ

* minimal punishment history

* cautious, avoids/minimizes excitement

9

Bonta fiddles while rehabilitation burns

10

Psychopathological Models

Assessment Treatment

Anxiety � Relaxation, medication

Intellectual/ � Educational/RemedialCognitive Deficits

Self-esteem � CounselingDepressionAlienation

Schizophrenia � Hospitalization,Manic-depression medicationHallucinationsDelusions

Emotional Discomfort and Crime

Risk Factor k n r

Emotional D iscomfort 66 19,933 .05

Gendreau et al., 1996

Theory Assessment Treatment

Limited Social Position EmploymentOpportunity/ (Race, SES, EducationAnomie/Strain Ethnicity) Anti-poverty

Labeling Social Position Non-intervention

Conflict Social Position Social JusticeRedistribute wealth

Subcultural Alienation Group cohesionSelf-esteem Leadership training

Sociological Criminology

Social Class and Crime

Risk Factor k n r

Lower Class 23 13,080 .05

Gendreau et al., 1996

14

Correctional Quackery

� “treatment interventions that are based neither on existing knowledge of the causes of crime or programs that have shown to change offender behavior”

� Dismissive of evidence

15

Correctional Quackery: Examples

� Music/Drama/Art/Horticultural Therapies

� Acupuncture

� TM; “Refining the Breath”

� Pet Therapy

� Men required to dress as women

� Vision Training

16

This is a Good Day to Die

17

The Renaissance

“What Works”

18

D. A. Andrews (aka “Moses”)

19

Risk and Treatment (% Recidivism)

Study

Risk

Low

Intensive

Bonta et al. (2000) Low

High

15

51

32

32

O’Donnell et al (1971) Low

High

16

78

22

56

Baird et al (1979) Low

High

3

37

10

18

Andrews & Kiessling (1980) Low

High

12

58

17

31

Treatment

20

Treatment Principle 1

Risk Principle

Match treatment services to risk level

21

Treatment Dosage

Lipsey’s (1995) meta-analysis

⇒ young offenders⇒ 100+ contact hours

Carleton University: Dosage and effect size

⇒ r = .05 (all studies; k = 374); but # hours r = .41⇒ r = .11 (youth; k = 193)⇒ r = .28* (female; k = 45)⇒ r = .22* (minority; k = 105)

Bourgon & Armstrong (2005) ⇒ matching of risk level with treatment⇒ precise measure of risk and treatment length⇒ at least 200 hours

22

Needs and Dynamic Risk

Criminogenic Noncriminogenic

Procriminal attitudes Self-esteem

Criminal associates Vague feelings

Family affect/discipline Physical training

Antisocial personality Group cohesion

(self-control, anger)

Work training with job Increase ambition

23

Treatment Principle 2

Need Principle

Target criminogenic needs

24

Treatment Principle 3

Responsivity Principle

Match treatment style to offender’s learning style

General: Cognitive-Behavioural

Specific: Personal factors

25

1. We need good assessments of risk and criminogenic needs

2. Not all treatments are the same

Implications from the

Principles

26

What Factors are Important in Offender Risk Assessment?

27

History of antisocial behaviour

Antisocial personality pattern

Antisocial cognition

The “Big Four”

Risk Factors

Antisocial associates

Family and/or marital

School and/or work

Leisure and/or recreation

The “Central Eight” Risk Factors

Substance abuse

28

Not all Treatments are the Same

1990 Meta-analysis: The Resurgence of Offender Rehabilitation

Implications from the

Principles: Part 2

29

Service or Sanctions?

Service:

2006: r = +.12

(n = 273)

Sanction:

2006: r = -.03

(n = 101)

-0.04

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

Service

Sanction

30

Treatment by Risk

High Risk Cases:

r = .10

(n = 278)

Low Risk Cases:

r = .03

(n = 96)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

High Low

31

Targeting Criminogenic Needs

Criminogenic

r = .19

(n = 169)

Noncriminogenic

r = -.01

(n = 205)

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Crim Noncr

32

Intermediate Targets

Criminogenic needs targeted exclusivelyr = .22 (CI = 18 - 25; k = 111)

Some criminogenic needs targeted, some non-criminogenic needs targeted

r = .13 (CI = 10 - 18; k = 81)

Unspecified targetsr = .00 (CI = -04 - .04; k = 83)

Non-criminogenic needs targeted exclusivelyr = -.03 (CI = -.06 - .01; k = 99)

33

Behavioural Treatment

Behavioural

r = .23

(n =77)

Nonbehavioural

r = .04

(n = 297)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Beh

Nonbeh

34

Traditional

Punishments

(30 studies)

Effectiveness of RNR Adherence:

% Difference (Expt-Control group)

ISPs

(47 studies)

Unspecified

Treatment

(54 studies)

Inappropriate

Treatment

(32 studies)

Appropriate

Treatment

(38 studies)

-7% -7% - 6%

13%

30%

-10

0

10

20

30

Adherence to Principles by Setting

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 1 2 3

# of Treatment Conditions

Decrease

Increase

Recidivism

�Community

� Residence

36

Violent Recidivism: Mean ES by Level of RNR Adherence

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0 None 1 Low 2 Mod 3 Full

37

.02 .03

.17

.36

-.02

.02

.18

.24

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

None Low Mod High

Women

Men

Adherence to RNR by Gender

38

RNR Adherence and Program Type

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0 None 1 Low 2 Mod 3 Full

Family

Academic

Drug/Alcohol

Work

39

Sex Offender Treatment: Adherence to Risk, Need and Responsivity

-0.04

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

average phi

None 1 principle 2 principles All three

4 studies 6 studies 12 studies 1 study

40

Comparative effects sizes for selected interventions

Intervention Target Effect size

Aspirin Heart attack 0.03

Chemotherapy Breast cancer 0.11

Bypass surgery Heart disease 0.15

Offender Treatment Recidivism 0.12 (ns)

0.29 (approp)

41

42

Reality Check

Making it Work

43

Percent of Studies Adhering to the Principles of Effective Treatment

P r in c ip le %

R isk 7 4

N e ed 4 5

R e sp o n s iv ity 2 1

A ll 1 6

44

Treatment Principles

� Risk Principle -Match treatment services to risk level

� Need Principle- Target criminogenic needs

� Responsivity Principle -Match treatment style to offender’s learning style

� Program Integrity – Delivering the service as intended

45

The “Real World” vs. the “Small Demonstration” Project

• Mark Lipsey noted how the effects of treatment are much higher in demonstration projects than in the “real world” of routine programming

• We too find this effect in our meta-analyses

46

Level of RNR Adherence

Program Type 0 1 2 3

Demonstration .01 .07 .31 .34

Real World -.02 .04 .09 .15

RNR Adherence

47

Community Programs in Ohio

Latessa & Lowenkamp (2006)

• 13,221 offenders: 37 Halfway Houses; 15 Community Based Facilities

• Two-year follow-up conducted on all offenders

• Recidivism measures included new arrests & incarceration in a state penal institution

48

Supervision Intensity & Treatment (Risk Principle)

7

1

0

2

4

6

8

10

High Risk/More

Service

Low Risk/More

Service

Change in Recidivism

49

Criminogenic Programming and Treatment (Need Principle)

5

-16-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

More than 25%

Criminogenic

Less than 25%

Criminogenic

% Change in Recidivism

50

Behavioural Treatment Model & Recidivism (Responsivity Principle)

8

00

2

4

6

8

10

Cognitive Behavioral Other

% Change in Recidivism

51

What is it about Demonstration Projects?

• Staff are carefully selected, trained and supervised

• Training and supervision according to relationship and structuring skills

• Specific model of treatment with manuals

• Adequate dosage

• Monitoring of process/intermediate change

• Small numbers

• Involved evaluator

52

Indicators of Program Integrity

Present

Indicator no yes

Selected for relationship skills .08 .48

Staff trained .02 .15

Staff clinically supervised .07 .18

Monitor intermediate targets .07 .11

Specific model .02 .14

Evaluator involved .04 .24

Small program/sample .05 .14

Appropriate dosage .07 .12

53

Making it Work

Adhering to “RNR Principles”

⇒ Risk-Needs assessment

⇒ Training staff to target criminogenic needs⇒ Responsivity: Relationship & Structuring

Monitoring of Service Integrity

⇒ Constantly evaluate what you are doing

54

Tony Soprano

• Tony’s psychotherapist has given up her pursuit of enhancing Tony’s emotional health

• If only she had known the RNR model

• Of course, crime prevention was never really her goal

• Traditional mental health concern with enhanced personal well-being

• Healthy more confident criminal