* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Improving Drug Abuse Services in Criminal Justice Settings
Criminalization wikipedia , lookup
Infectious diseases within American prisons wikipedia , lookup
Youth detention center wikipedia , lookup
Youth incarceration in the United States wikipedia , lookup
American juvenile justice system wikipedia , lookup
Alternatives to imprisonment wikipedia , lookup
Trial as an adult wikipedia , lookup
Criminal justice system of the Netherlands wikipedia , lookup
What Works in Corrections: Strategies to Reduce Recidivism Faye S. Taxman, Ph.D. George Mason University [email protected] 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 5,613,739 adults need TX (4.5M males, 1.1M females) 7.6% receive TX Each day! 19 80 19 82 19 84 19 86 19 88 19 90 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00 20 02 20 04 In Millions 1:28 adults Insatiable Appetite: The Ever Expanding Population 8+M Adults, 650K Juveniles Year Probation Jail Prison *Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005 adjusted with estimates from Taxman, et al, 2007. Parole Juveniles Other Adult Substance Use Disorders (Percentages) 80 70 70 60 50 44 40 38 40 30 20 10 4.7 2.6 12 9 0 Lifetime Adult Justice Adult General 30 Days Juvenile Justice Juvenile General CJ Populations have 4 times the SA Disorders as the General Population STDs (Percentages) • AIDS/HIV: 2% CJ, <1% general • TB : 25% CJ, <.01% general • HEP C: 30% CJ, 1.6% general 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 16.3 8.9 5.9 2.8 0.5 Chlamydia Adult Justice 5.2 3.9 0.6 0.1 Gonorrhea Adult General Juvenile Justice 0.01 1.3 0.01 Syphillis Juvenile General Co-Occurring Disorders and Mental Health Disorders (Percentages) 90 80 70 80 75 64 60 50 40 51 26.2 30 20 10 0 8.4 6.3 Co-Occurring Disorders Adult Justice 25 Adult General MH Disorders Juvenile Justice Juvenile General Type of SA Services Offered • Few Offenders Can Access Services on Any Given Day • Majority are Drug-Alcohol Education – Adult Prison—74%, 8.8% ADP – Adult Jail—61%, 4.5% ADP – Adult CC—53.1%, 15.5% ADP – Juv Res—88%, 30%ADP – Juv CC—80.2%, 8.2ADP • Low Intensity OP (<4Hrs/Week) • CBT based therapies are reported in 1 in 5 community based programs for offenders Taxman, Perdoni, & Harrison, 2007 % of Adult ADP in Substance Abuse Treatment Services 50% Estimates of Needs (Belenko & Peugh, 2005): Dependent: 31.5% Males, 52.3%Females % of ADP in SA Tx Services 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Drug Alcohol Education SA Group Counseling: up to 4 hrs/week Prison ADP Taxman, Perdoni, Harrison, 2007 SA Group Counseling: 525 hrs/week Jail ADP TC-Segregated Community ADP TC-Nonsegregated What Should We Do? • Evidence-Based Practices • Policies to Support Adoption of EBPs • Increase Programming What Has Been Tried: CJ Interventions? Results from Meta-Analysis • Intensive Supervision • Boot Camps • Case Management • Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities (TASC) • DTAP (Diversion to TX, 12 Month Residential) • Tx w/ Sanctions (e.g. Break the Cycle, Seamless System, etc.) • Drug Treatment Courts • In-Prison Tx (TC) with Aftercare Taxman, 1999; MacKenzie, 2006; Aos, et al, 2006 What Has Been Tried: Clinical? Results from Meta-Analysis • Education (Psycho-Social) • Non-Directive Counseling • Directive Counseling • Motivational Interviewing • Moral Reasoning • 12 Step with Curriculum • Cognitive Processing • Cognitive Behavioral (Social Skills, Behavioral Management, etc.) • Therapeutic Communities • Contingency Management/Token Economies NIDA, 2006 What Does NOT Work (non-Behavioral)* • Incarceration—70% return; fairly constant • Fear and other emotional appeals • Threatening • Bibliotherapy • Talking cures • Self-Help programs • Vague unstructured programs • Fostering self-regard (self-esteem) • “Punishing smarter” Latessa, 2003 Reduction of Crime and Cost Aos, et al 2006 What Have We Learned? • DOES NOT WORK Boot camps, intensive supervision & control-interventions do not change behavior • WORKS Clinical component or rehabilitation • MIXED RESULTS Positive Results IF: Negative Results IF: Target High Risk Offenders Unfair Procedures or Processes Longer duration of TX (>90 days) Less than 90 days Treatment is CBT or TC and multidimensional No clinical component All sanctions Address Compliance issues with immediate responses Low risk offenders Target offense, not behaviors Rewards to shape behaviors Procedural Justice Treat like all others, Fairness Responsivity Diagnosis, Address Behavioral Drivers Behavioral Management Shape Behavior, Reinforcers, Contingency Management Social Learning Models #1: Procedural Justice: Fairness & Legitimacy National Research Council, 2005 Reduced rearrests for DV offenders when arrestees given clear instructions about the reason for rearrest (Paternoster, Brame, Bachman, Sherman, 1996) Police misconduct in high disadvantaged areas increases violence (Kane, 2005) Police clear instructions increase compliance in communities (Tyler, et al., 2000, 2003, 2004) Relevance to Corrections: legal cyncism, distrust, and milieu influence outcomes from treatment programs Impact: Perceived Fairness on Outcomes When Offenders Believe they have a VOICE, reductions in negative outcomes occur! Procedural Justice by PO Procedural Justice by TX Taxman & Thanner, 2004 -.19* -.44* Arrest/VOP Drug Use at Follow-up APA Task Force on Empirically Supported Therapy Relationships* • Rapport/Relationship with Counselor Increase Outcomes: 40% outcomes • Therapeutic alliance: works with client, not against • Goal consensus and collaboration: agree on goals for client • Empathy: understands client *Norcross, 2002 #2: Risk, Need, & Responsivity • Valid Instruments to Identify Risk Factors and Criminogenic Needs • Provide Treatment for Offenders that address Criminogenic Needs • Match Offenders to Treatment Programs Designed to Affect Criminogenic Needs • Basic Principle: High Risk Offenders should be placed Failure to Match Offenders to Appropriate Services Affects Outcomes % With New Arrest 60% 44% 50% 43% 41% 40% 26% 30% Mean 31% 20% 10% 0% Sanction - No Tx Criminal Offender Taxman, Reedy, and Ormond (2003) Sanction + Tx Addict Offender Matching Offenders to Appropriate Services • Use Risk Tools that are Actuarial in Basis • Use Needs Tools that Focus on Dynamic criminogenic factors (e.g. peers, antisocial personality, criminal thinking, etc.) that are subject to change • Screen/assess on key issues of criminogenic needs and dependency issues – Offense is not a Proxy for Risk Focus On “Big Six” Criminogenic Needs: 1)Anti-Social Values 2) Criminal Peers 3) Low Self-Control 4) Dysfunctional Family Ties 5) Substance Abuse 6) Criminal Personality Eric Shepardson & Lina Bello, Bureau of Governmental Research 2001, www.bgr.umd.edu. Impact of Programs Based on Number of Target Criminogenic Needs Addressed 0.35 0.3 Reduction in Recidivism 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Increase in Recidivism -0.05 <3 Needs 4+ Needs Adapted from Latessa, 2003. Original Source is 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 #3 Behavioral Management Approaches What is a reinforcer? Anything that will be of value to the offender, and that will motivate production of good behavior. Goods, Services, $ • Shapes Offender Behavior – Must be salient; valuable to the recipient – Must be swift and certain – Must be withheld when desired behavior does not occur • Withdrawal of aversive conditions – Foregoing a urine testing – Decreasing frequency of meetings with PO % Retained Retention in Treatment with Positive Reinforcers 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2 4 6 weeks Standard Petry et al., 2000 Cont Mgt 8 % Positive for Any Illicit Drug 50 40 30 % 20 10 0 Intake Standard Petry et al., 2000 Week 4 Week 8 Cont. Mgt. Re-Arrest Rates From Maryland PCS •38% Reduction in Odds of Rearrest Rates Rearrest Rates* 0 *p<.01 Taxman, 2008 10 20 Non-PCS 30 40 PCS 50 Requests for VOP Warrants (Maryland PCS) • 40% Reduction in Odds of VOP Warrants Warrant Rates* 0 *p<.05 Taxman, 2008 5 10 15 Non-PCS 20 25 PCS 30 35 Challenges: Limited Knowledge and Use of Evidence-Based Practices Use of EBPS Mean No. of EBP 0 2 Adult Prison Adult CC Juv CC 4 6 8 Adult Jail Juv Res Ad Drug Court Use of techniques to engage and retain clients in treatment Addressing co-occurring disorders Treatment duration of 90 days or longer Assessment of treatment outcomes Family involvement in treatment Availability of qualified treatment staff Comprehensive Services Developmentally appropriate treatment Use of therapeutic community/CBT Standardized risk assessment Standardized substance abuse assessment Continuing care or aftercare Use of graduated sanctions and incentives Use of drug testing in treatment Systems integration Friedmann, Taxman, & Henderson, 2007: Young, Dembo, & Henderson, 2007 Factors* Associated with the Use of EBPs in Adult Corrections Systems Community based programs Administrators: - Background human service - Knowledge about EBP - Belief in rehabilitation Performance driven culture Emphasis on training Emphasis on internal support All factors listed were statistically significant in multivariate analyses. Factors not impacting use of EBPs: Physical Plant, Staffing, Leadership Friedmann, Taxman, & Henderson, 2007; Grella,et al, 2007 State of Practice • Drug Abusing Offenders are Unlikely to Receive Adequate Treatment Services—too few offenders to have an impact on behavior/outcomes • Risk-need-responsivity model is still “under construction”, but more in place in prison-based TCs • System needs strategies to make gains in implementation – Few knowledge barriers, lack of tools – Adoption is Affected by policies – Adoption is Affected by failure to connect to sentencing • Continue to develop practices to provide for a continuum of care of similar treatment orientations and philosophies Unintended Consequences: Our Current Tx & CJS Practices • With the majority of offenders in need of services and the minority receiving services no one can not “feel” the impact of treatment • The continual failure to provide access contributes to an offender’s disbelief and defiance • Strides in SA treatment do not carry over into CJS with the same, inappropriate processes • Motivational Engagement practices need to incorporated in CJS actions at all points Steps to Move Ahead • Adopt Risk and Need Instruments at Sentencing to Define the Sentence – Triage: High Risk Offenders Should Be First Priority for Programming – Programs need to be CBT, focused on continuum of care • Advance the use of Programming to ensure that 50% of the offenders are involved in educational, vocational, and treatment programming • Ensure that programming is evidence-based • Have Correctional Officers/Supervision Staff be part of the plan by using motivational strategies (change the tone of corrections) Tools of the Trade: A Guide to Incorporating Science into Practice http://www.nicic.org/Library/020095 WWW.CJDATS.ORG “The empirical evidence regarding intermediate sanctions is decisive. Without a rehabilitative component, reductions in recidivism are elusive,” --as noted by criminologist Joan Petersilia