6/16/2010. Participant. Public Defender Assistant District Attorney. Assessor Counselor

Transcription

1 Evidence-Based Practices Courts Hon. John C. Creuzot Dallas, Texas Teresa May-Williams, Ph.D. Assistant Director Dallas County CSCD Texas Definition of Courts Texas law allows probation even with prior convictions! Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Program (SAFP) SAFP Traditional Model Clients are ordered to participate in SAFP as a condition of probation. SAFP is a lock-down drug treatment program operated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). 1

2 50% Incarcerations Due to Technical Violations SAFPF Outcome Statewide Studies Showed Poor Outcomes Release Year SAFPF Sample SAFPF Comparison Michael Eisenberg TDCJ-CJAD CJAD Research and Evaluation Percent re-incarcerated in 2 Year Follow-up FY 2000 FY 2004 Study Study 31.7% 32.8% 29.9% 27.4% Successful Completers Unsuccessful Completers Completion Rates for SAFP Statewide are Poor FY2004 Completion Rates FY2004 Recidivism Rate 39% 12.8% 61% 45.4% Entire Sample 32.8% Comparison Group 27.4% Solution: Re-entry entry courts upon exit from SAFP units! SAFP Court Problem-Solving Court Structure Judge Supervision Field Officer Public Defender Assistant District Attorney Participant Assessor Counselor 2

3 Prior Arrest History SAFPF Court Study Participants Average arrests prior to SAFPF = 9 SD = 5.9 Range 1 to 34 Over 20% have 15 or more prior offenses Court Study Design 70 SAFPF Special Needs & Regular Participants SAFPF + Judge Creuzot s Court 70 SAFPF Regular Participants SAFPF + Judge Francis Court 70 SAFPF Special Needs & Regular Participants SAFPF only No court 70 SAFPF Regular Participants SAFPF only No court Method Outcome Variables - Probation Status -Re-incarceration in State Jail or Prison - New Arrests Timeframe -All participants were tracked for 3 Years following entry into the Transitional Therapeutic Community (TTC) phase of the SAFPF program Revocations 3 Years Francis Revoked 61% (43) 20% (14) 69% (48) 33% (23) Technical 45% (19) 43% (6) 52% (25) 48% (11) New Offenses 55% (24) 57% (8) 48% (23) 52% (12) 67% Reduction Revocations 52% Reduction Revocations 3

4 New Arrests 3 Years after Creuzot Francis Probation Status 3 Years after Creuzot Francis Re-E ntry Percent Arrested Total New Arrests 49% (34) 39% (27) 49% (34) 29% (20) % Reduction New Arrests 47% Reduction New Arrests Revoked 61% (43) 20% (14) 69% (48) 33% (23) On Probation or Complete 30% (21) 73% (51) 20% (14) 60% (42) Absconded 9% (6) 7% (5) 11% (8) 7% (5) Revoked by Year 3 Status and Post Release Arrests for Revoked Participants 43 Creuzot Francis 23 In Prison Released Percent of Released Re-arrested Number of Re-arrests Conclusions The addition of Courts to the SAFPF program significantly reduced revocation rates for a high risk population. The addition of Courts to the SAFPF program led to fewer new arrests and ultimately fewer victims in the community. Higher revocation rates did not result in fewer victims (new arrests). 4

5 Principles of Effective Intervention Apply to Re-entry entry Court Programs Risk Principle target higher risk offenders (WHO). Use empirically validated actuarial risk assessment tools (e.g. LSI-R) Relapse prevention programs that adhere to evidenced based principles have better outcomes! Risk, Need, and Responsivity Principles Need Principle target criminogenic risk/need factors (WHAT). Treatment Principle use behavioral approaches (HOW). Responsivity Principle: delivering programs that are consistent with the ability and learning style of the offender (How). Fidelity Principle implement program as designed (HOW WELL). Dowden, Antonowitz, & Andrews ( 2003) Valid Risk Assessment Of the Central Eight Risk Factors Predict Risk Driven Supervision Level Evidence-Based Model Target Criminogenic Needs Criminal Behavior Treatment Level based on Assessment Lower Recidivism Risk Common Problems with Offender Assessment Assess offenders but process ignores important factors. Assess offenders but don t distinguish levels (high, moderate, low). Assess offenders then don t useit it everyone gets the same treatment. Make errors and don t correct. Don t assess offenders at all. Do not adequately train staff in use or interpretation. Assessment instruments are not validated or normed. Latessa 5

6 Actuarial Assessment of Risk is Best! Research has shown less than 10% of variability in sentencing can be accounted for by objectively defined facts Actuarial/Statistical Professional Judgement Goggins (1994) (Costanzo, 2004). Who to target? Re-entry entry programs decrease recidivism for high risk offenders but increase recidivism for low risk offenders! The strongest risk factors for recidivism are shared by those with and without substance abuse problems. Offenders Halfway House Study of Re-entry program (3500 Treated, 3500 Supervision Only ) LowenKamp & Latessa (2005) Substance addicted offenders 6

7 What to target? Central Eight Risk Factors Better Fit Based on Risk and Addiction Severity = Better Outcomes! Re-entry entry program outcomes depend on the number of criminogenic factors the program targets! Increased Decreased LowenKamp & Latessa (2005) 7

8 Criminogenic Need N = 62 CSOs/154 Clients # Identified Discussed (%) Accommodation (57%) Employment (57%) Substance Abuse (78%) Criminal Attitude 34 3 (8.8%) Family/Marital (90%) Financial 26 9 (34%) Emotional (64%) Criminogenic Companions 38 8 ( 21%) Time Spent Discussing Criminogenic Need Percent Recidivated 0 to 19 Minutes 49% 20 to 39 Minutes 36% More than 40 Minutes 3% What to do? Spend less time monitoring and more time focusing on criminogenic factors! When officers spent a significant amount of time dealing with their client s problems or criminogenic needs compared to spending little time on them, the recidivism rates were significantly ifi lower (36% vs. 49% respectively). When officers focused on compliance issues (defined as spending more than 15 minutes in a session on this topic), the recidivism rates were actually higher compared to spending less than 15 minutes on issues of compliance (42.3% vs. 18.9%). Bonta, Rugge, Scott, Bourgon, & Yessine, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation (2008) Bonta, Rugge, Scott, Bourgon, & Yessine, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation (2008) How to target? Most Effective Behavioral Models Structured social learning where new skills and behaviors are modeled. Cognitive behavioral approaches that target criminogenic risk factors. Family based approaches that train family on appropriate techniques. Social Learning (Built into the Drug Court Model) Offenders learn pro-social behaviors, attitudes, and knowledge from the people around them. Both modeling and instrumental conditioning play a role in social learning. 8

9 The Four Principles of Cognitive Intervention Thinking affects behavior. Anti-social, distorted, unproductive irrational thinking causes antisocial and unproductive behavior. Thinking can be influenced. We can change how we feel and behave by changing what we think. Can you reduce arrests for new criminal behavior by targeting criminal thinking? Tippecanoe County Indiana Probation + Thinking for a Change (T4C ) vs. probation 136 Treatment cases 97 Comparison cases Variable follow up (range 6 to 64 months; average 26) Outcome arrest for new criminal behavior Lowenkamp and Latessa (2006) Recidivism Rates Comparing T4C Participants to Comparison Group Even the best programs do not work if they are not implemented correctly! Lowenkamp and Latessa (2006) LowenKamp,Latessa, & Smith (2006) 9

10 Texas Expands SAFP Re-entry entry Court Programs Two Pilots Dallas County CSCD Fort Bend County CSCD Seamless transition from unit to re-entry entry court! SAFP Court Program Tracks 10

11 SAFP Court Achieving the Mission through Partnerships Probation Seamless communication between team members to continually address criminogenic factors Community Treatment Judiciary Court Target Population What to target? Re-entry entry Court Focus 11

12 Court Program The Court program uses Strategies for Change curriculum (Wanberg & Milkman) that targets both criminal thinking and addiction. The curriculum includes a fidelity measure. The Court program employs social learning where new skills and behaviors are modeled. Families participate in treatment to educate and train family members on appropriate techniques. Dallas County CSCD SAFP Court Preliminary Outcomes Total admissions 278 Transferred to another program 3 Revoked 13 (4.6%) Current Absconders 14 (5%) Escalated to Residential 31 (11%) Currently Successful 217 (78%) What to do? Assess for Risk/Needs using a validated risk instrument. Focus on clients with high risk/high addiction severity. Target at least 4-6 criminiogenic factors. Spend more time discussing criminogenic factors and less time talking about specific conditions. Use problem solving to address compliance issues. Remember negative pressure (threats, confrontation) is stronger than positive strategies in impacting recidivism. Coordinate with the community and re-entry entry court team to target high risk/high addiction severity. 12