THE NSW BUREAU OF CRIME STATISTICS AND RESEARCH APPLIED RESEARCH IN

THE NSW BUREAU OF CRIME STATISTICS AND RESEARCH APPLIED RESEARCH IN CRIME AND JUSTICE CONFERENCE 2015 L A S N I ER M D I N R C FE E OF TH F O G N ES I I C T U I D IV Doris Layton MacKenzie, Ph.D E Director, Penn State Justice R CT Center for Research and A Professor of Criminology Based on a paper by D.L. MacKenzie and G. Zajac, “What Works in Corrections: the Impact of Correctional Interventions on Recidivism submitted to the U.S. National Academies of Science, 2014

REDUCING THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES OF OFFENDERS OVERVIEW Changes in correctional philosophy in the U.S. Impact of changes Evidence-based corrections Improvement in quality of research What Works to reduce recidivism Fidelity and implementation

1975: LIPTON, MARTINSON AND WILKS STUDY FOR NEW YORK CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM What Works? “(with) few and isolated exceptions the rehabilitative efforts that have been reported so far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism.“ (Martinson, 1974, p25)

WORK WAS WIDELY INTERPRETED AS: “NOTHING WORKS”

MARTINSON AND COLLEAGUE’S CONCLUSIONS Inadequate research designs and methods Poorly implemented programs Impossible to determine from the existing data whether anything could work!!!!!

TIMES WERE RIPE FOR CHANGE Social upheavals Civil rights, women’s rights, sexual freedom War in Vietnam Corrections: riots in prison, unfairness of the system Dramatic change in U.S. corrections Move away from rehabilitation More punitive, law and order and get tough Deterrence and incapacitation

CHANGES IN PHILOSOPHY OF CORRECTIONS Impact on correctional system and What was studied

IMPACT ON CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM Move away from rehabilitation, “Nothing Works” Use of incapacitation and deterrence Law and order philosophy U.S. Incarceration Rate in State and Federal Institutions

CHANGES SINCE MARTINSON’S REPORT Corrections philosophy Evidence-based corrections Improvement in quality of research Emphasis on implementation

CHANGES IN PHILOSOPHY More punitive Law and order Incapacitation Deterrence

PROGRAMS/ INTERVENTIONS Correctional boot camps Longer prison sentences More prison sentences Urine testing Intensive supervision

EVIDENCE-BASED CORRECTIONS Use of science in decision making Identify effective correctional programs, interventions, strategies Correctional interventions should be those shown in scientific studies to have the desired impact

WHAT WORKS IN CORRECTIONS? What have we learned from the research? Focus on reducing recidivism Examined management strategies, programs, interventions, treatment

DETERMINING WHAT WORKS Maryland Report assessments Quality of research Significance and direction of effects Meta-analyses

MARYLAND CRIME PREVENTION REPORT Requested by U.S. Congress Comprehensive evaluation of effectiveness crime prevention efforts (including corrections) “What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising” Sherman et. al.

DECISION MAKING PROCEDURE 2 STAGE ASSESSMENT 1.Assess scientific quality and significance DECISIONS What works What doesn’t work Promising 2. Examine groups of studies Don’t know

SCORING FOR SCIENTIFIC QUALITY Score Characteristic 1 Very poor quality 2 Association 3 Comparison group 4 Similar comparison group (propensity scoring, controls) 5 Control group/ Experimental design Randomly assigned Gold standard

META-ANALYSES Analysis of a group of studies Quantitative analysis Effect sizes Careful coding of studies program components participant characteristics Quality of research design/ methods

BOOT CAMP META-ANALYSIS EXAMPLE 29 eligible studies 41 samples – 14 juveniles, 27 adults

FOREST PLOT FROM META-ANALYSIS: CORRECTIONAL BOOT CAMPS Favors Comparison Favors Bootcamp Fl. Dept. of JJ (Martin Co.), 1997 Farrington, et al., 2000 Fl. Dept. of JJ (Polk Co., Boys), 1997 Jones (FY97), 1998 Jones (FY94-95), 1998 Mackenzie & Souryal (Illinois), 1994 Mackenzie & Souryal (Louisiana), 1994 Jones (FY91-93), 1998 Mackenzie & Souryal (Florida), 1994 Jones (FY96), 1998 Marcus-Mendoza (Men), 1995 Flowers, Carr, & Ruback 1991 Fl. Dept. of JJ (Leon Co.), 1996 Mackenzie & Souryal (Oklahoma), 1994 T3 Associates, 2000 Mackenzie & Souryal (New York), 1994 Peters (Mobile, AL), 1996b Camp & Sandhu, 1995 Zhang, 2000 Mackenzie & Souryal (S.C., New), 1994 Jones, 1996 Zhang, 2000 NY DCS (88-96 Releases), 2000 Marcus-Mendoza (Women), 1995 Farrington, et al., 2000 Harer & Klein-Saffran, 1996 Kempinem & Kurlychek, 2001 Austin, Jones, & Bolyard, 1993 Burns & Vito, 1995 Peters (Denver, CO), 1996a Fl. Dept. of JJ (Bay Co.), 1997 Mackenzie, et al. 1997 CA Dept. of the Youth Authority, 1997 NY DCS (96-97 Releases), 2000 NY DCS (97-98 Releases), 2000 Fl. Dept. of JJ (Pinellas Co.), 1996 Fl. Dept. of JJ (Manatee Co.), 1996 Boyles, Bokenkamp, & Madura, 1996 Mackenzie & Souryal (S.C., Old), 1994 Fl. Dept. of JJ (Polk Co., Girls), 1997 Jones, 1997 Thomas & Peters, 1996 Wright & Mays, 1998 Mackenzie & Souryal (Georgia), 1994 Overall Mean Odds-Ratio .1 .25 .50 .75 1 Odds-Ratio Central tendency, lines confidence intervals 2 5 10

IN-PRISON DRUG TREATMENT Author and Year PRENDERGAST ET AL 1996 HARTMANN ET AL 1997 TUNIS ET AL (DEUCE) 1995 TUNIS ET AL (JET) 1995 INCIARDI ET AL (CREST) 1997 TUNIS ET AL (REACH) 1995 WEXLER ET AL (MALES) 1990 WEXLER ET AL 1999 TAXMAN & SPINNER 1996 PETERS ET AL 1993 KNIGHT ET AL (ITC) 1999 SMITH 1996 HUGHEY & KLEMKE 1996 WEXLER ET AL (FEMALES) 1990 WA STATE DOC 1998 LITTLE ET AL 1991 EISENBERG & FABELO 1996 ZHANG ('97 COHORT) 2000 PELISSIER ET AL (MALES) 2000 PELISSIER ET AL (FEMALES) 2000 TUNIS ET AL (SAID) 1995 ZHANG ('92-93 COHORT) 2000 OREGON DOC 1994 GRANSKY & JONES 1997 EISENBERG 2001 TUNIS ET AL (NEW BEGIN) 1995 SEALOCK ET AL 1997 DUGAN & EVERETT 1998 MAGURA ET AL (MALES) 1993 SHAW & MACKENZIE 1992 SIEGAL ET AL 1997 MAGURA ET AL (FEMALES) 1993 N 64 244 264 150 359 159 594 715 528 420 396 495 394 285 676 152 1067 200 1842 473 374 854 240 415 5746 166 520 117 149 256 726 100 Favors Comparison Favors Treatment Overall Mean Odds-Ratio .1 .25 .50 .75 1 Odds-Ratio 2 5 10 25

QUALITY OF RESEARCH Many more experiments (random assignment) since Martinson’s report Experiments with offending outcomes 35 from 1957-1981 (Farrington) 83 from 1982-2002 (Farrington and Welsh) Most meta-analyses control for quality of research Some meta-analyses use only randomized trials

IMPROVEMENT BUT STILL RELATIVELY FEW RANDOMIZED TRIALS 284 Studies at scientific method score of 2 or higher Only 14.8 % of the studies scored “5” 23.2 % scored “2” – too low to use to determine “What Works”

USING META-ANALYSES TO DETERMINE WHAT WORKS Comprehensive or theoretical meta-analyses Large number of studies More inclusive in eligibility criteria Support for various theoretical perspectives Identify general principles of treatment and effectiveness Intervention-specific meta-analyses Focus on specific types of programs, strategies or interventions Clearly define Does the particular type of intervention reduce recidivism? Campbell Collaboration

COMPREHENSIVE META-ANALYSES OF CORRECTION INTERVENTIONS Programs that follow the proposed principles (Andrews and Bonta 2006) are more effective than others Behavioral, skill-oriented or multimodal programs are more effective than other types of programs (Andrews, Bonta, Gendreau, Lipsey 1992, Losel 1995) Therapeutic rehabilitation programs more effective than punitive approaches (control and deterrence) (Lipsey and Cullen 2007; Lipsey 2009) Programs targeting high risk offenders are more effective (Lipsey 2009) Well implemented programs are more effective (Lipsey 2009)

INTERVENTION-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENTS WHAT WORKS? Drug treatment in community and prison Drug Courts Education NO EVIDENCE, DOES NOT WORK Boot Camps Scared Straight Correctional Industries Work programs Vocational Ed Custodial sanctions Some Sex offender treatment Intensive supervision Cognitive skills programs Life skills Batterer programs Electronic monitoring

CLASSIFYING PROGRAMS Type Examples Effective? Surveillance and control Electronic monitoring, Intensive supervision NO Deterrence and punitive Scared Straight Longer or more prison NO Discipline Correctional boot camps NO Services and opportunities Correctional industries Work programs NO Rehabilitation and skill building Cognitive skills Education YES

INTERVENTIONS USING “GET TOUGH” OR “LAW AND ORDER” PHILOSOPHY DO NOT WORK Surveillance and control Deterrence and punitive Discipline

WHY AREN’T PROGRAMS THAT INCREASE SERVICES AND OPPORTUNITIES EFFECTIVE? Offenders are not prepared to take advantage Don’t stop “street life, alcohol/drug use or partying Don’t get up to make it to work on time May not get along with others at work

INDIVIDUAL TRANSFORMATION Offenders must be changed before they are prepared to take advantage of opportunities in the environment (Giordano and colleagues, Maruna, Shover, Farrall)

WE’VE COME A LONG WAY SINCE MARTINSON Some programs do work New and better research techniques

GOOD NEWS Some interventions/programs work Increased number of experiments Emphasis on evidence-based corrections

BAD NEWS Many programs/ interventions implemented under “law & order” emphasis have been shown to be ineffective Quality of research Long way to go to reach other fields in number of experiments Meta-analyses search through thousands of studies to find level 3 or above Fidelity and Implementation still an issue

FIDELITY AND IMPLEMENTATION Well-trained staff Principles of effective programs Dosage Risk level Quality control

EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPLEMENTATION QUALITY Implementation Quality Intervention Effectiveness High Low Effective Good Interventio n Poor Intervention Ineffective Poor Intervention Poor Intervention

MORAL IMPERATIVES Adequate research designs Well implemented programs and policies Using evidence about what works

THANK YOU Doris Layton MacKenzie 327 Pond Bldg Penn State University University Park, PA USA [email protected] 814-867-3292

MacKenzie, D. L. (2005). The importance of using scientific evidence to make decisions about correctional programming. Criminology & Public Policy , 4 (2), 249-258. MacKenzie, D. (2000). Evidence-based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime and Delinquency , 46 (4), 471. MacKenzie, D. L. (2001). Corrections and sentencing in the 21st century: Evidence-based corrections and sentencing. The Prison Journal , 81 (3), 299-312. Campbell Collaboration. http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/crime and justice/index.php MacKenzie, D. L. (2002). Reducing the Criminal Activities of Known Offenders and Delinquents: Crime Prevention in the Courts and Corrections. In L. W. Sherman, B. C. Welsh, D. P. Farrington, & D. L. MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidence-Based Crime Prevention (pp. 330-404). London, UK: Harwood Academic Publishers. Reprinted revised edition 2006, NY: Routledge. Sherman, L. W., Welsh, B. C., Farrington, D. P., & MacKenzie, D. L. (Eds.). (2002). Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. London, UK: Harwood Academic Publishers. Reprinted revised edition 2006, NY: Routledge.