Strategies to Decrease Technical Violators From Being Sent to Prison:

Ralph Fretz, Ph.D.Community Education Centers

FADAA/FCCMHAugust 7, 2013

Agenda

Present Brief History of Technical Violator (TV) influx

Review of research on State's responses to TVs

Brief description of STICS Describe New Jersey's response to the TV

influx and research on this response DMS-V and adaptive programming For copies of powerpoint, e-mail me at

RFretz@cecintl.com

State’s Method of Dealing with Recidivism

State’s Responses to Recidivism- Mr. O’s and Malaysia’s solution

Scope of the Problem

The following stats were drawn from the Florida DOC website for the 2011-2012 year:

45% of offenders on supervision successfully completed their term

15% of Florida supervisees were revoked for new arrest 23% of Florida supervisees were revoked for a technical

violation. In raw numbers for 2011-2012:

20,652 Technical Probation Violators revoked–usually due to a relapse

13,443 Probationers were revoked for new arrest 40,811 prison admissions were not due to a new

sentence

Community Supervision in the US

Community Supervision was originally designed as incentive to assist offenders' reentry.

Focus of Community Supervision has shifted to long-term management of offenders with isolation and containment as result.

Main tool for management-Community Supervision revocation.

What happened? Community Supervision became flooded with a tsunami of offenders due to the "get tough" on crime approaches of the 80s and 90s, but no effective method to deal with this influx.

Increase in Community Supervision Reincarceration Rates

Factors related to the Technical Community Supervision Violator (TV) reincarceration increase:

Lack of treatment and services in the community Lack of graduated sanctions Lack of standards for Technical Community

Supervision revocation Revocation often dependent on an individual

Community Supervision officer's definition Reasons for revocation to prison can vary state to

state, county to county, and even within the same Community Supervision office.

Steen and Opsal Findings (2007)

4 State sample- Kentucky, Michigan, New York, and Utah in 2000

Sample size was large- N=30,766 Results:

Race x Gender was significant factor- Black males were 50% more likely than White males to have their Community Supervision revoked for technical reasons

Time on Community Supervision was significant- each successful year on Community Supervision reduced possibility of new charge by 33% and technical violation by 40%

Females and older offenders were more successful Offenders with prior felonies and property offences were

least successful For reincarceration, property and sex offenders were

highest, but sex offenders were least likely to be violated for new offense

Risk-Need-Responsivity

Risk Principle-Assess Risk to determine intensity and dosage of treatment/services High risk-More Treatment/More Services Low Risk-Minimal to No Treatment/Services Low risk offenders who receive treatment may

actually have worse outcomes than no treatment

Risk levels determined by reliable and valid instruments used by properly trained staff. e.g. Me vs. a carpenter with a piece of wood and a saw

Risk-Need-Responsivity

Need Principle- Criminogenic needs are treatment targets Need determines what should be the focus of

treatment. Two main types of needs-criminogenic and non-

criminogenic Focus on needs that are related to criminal

behavior- criminogenic needs Needs are dynamic risk factors e.g. pro-criminal

attitudes Have to be assessed through reliable and valid

instrument

“Central Eight” (Andrews, 2006)

“Central Eight” (Andrews, 2006)

Risk Factor Need

History of criminal behavior Prosocial skills

Antisocial personality pattern Problem solving skills, anger management

Antisocial cognition Develop less risky thinking

Antisocial peers Reduce/eliminate association with criminal peers –healthy peers

Family and/or marital discord Reduce conflict, build positive relationships

Poor school and/or work performance Strengthen academics and/or job

Few leisure or recreation activities Prosocial outside involvement

Substance abuse Reduce/eliminate use

Anti-Social Associates

History of Anti-Social Behavior

Risk-Need-Responsivity

Responsivity Principle- Assess the offender’s learning style and ability and provide treatment consistent with this style and ability Two types: General and Specific General: Use evidence-based treatment such as

cognitive-behavioral methods Specific: Vary treatment based on the offender’s

strengths, level of motivation, and demographics. Includes counselor-offender matching

Assess through valid and reliable measures Critical to RNR- dev. of therapeutic relationship +

focus on strengths and desires of offender

X-ray of Male Brain

X-Ray of Female Brain

Technical Violators and RNR

Use reliable and valid measures to determine the technical violator’s current RNR-focus on current status including events surrounding current violation

Situational risk factors combine with historical risk factors plus lack of coping skills = violation. (e.g. Probationer with a substance abuse history is overwhelmed by a death in the family and reverts to drug use and criminal behavior.)

Graduated Sanctions and RNR The term, graduated sanctions, often means that

the State is attempting to move from a "black/white" approach to dealing with technical violators.

Graduated sanctions make sense in dealing with TPVs after an RNR assessment has been completed.

Sanctions should be based on the current RNR of the TPV.

Term, Graduated Sanctions, means structured and discretionary use of sanctions (Burke, 2007)

Training Program initiated in Canada for Probation and Parole Officers by Bonta and others.

Adherence to RNR determined level of recidivism

Factors included adherence to discussing criminogenic needs that were found to be relevant through risk/needs assessment

Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision (STICS)

Best Practices Techniques: Relationship Factors

Variables of PO or Counselor

Prompts/Encourages

Empathy

Warmth

Enthusiastic

Indicators of a positive rapport with clients

Best Practices Techniques: Structuring Skills in STICS

Variables of meeting

Prosocial reinforcement

Homework assigned

Practice

Procriminal discouragement

Prosocial modeling

Indicators of behavioural influence were critical

Targeting Criminogenic Needs and Recidivism in STICS

Discussing criminogenic needs were related to reduced recidivism

More focus on criminogenic needs, lower the recidivism

Too much focus on conditions of supervision, increased recidivism

NJ Parole Continuum for Dealing with TPVs

General Supervision Electronic Monitoring Day Reporting Centers “Halfway Back” residential programs

Substance abuse Work release

Regional Assessment Centers (RACs) Parolee and TPV is placed on continuum

based on RNR Imp.- information sharing from agency to

agency-seamless transfer of information Increased to high risk probationers

NJ Regional Assessment Centers (RAC): RNR with High Risk TPVs For male TPVs, who failed at one or more of

the following supervision requirements: Residential program failure Absconds Electronic monitoring failures General supervision failures.

All RAC residents are under warrant status Before RAC, these parolees would have gone

to jail, had a revocation hearing at jail, and 80% or higher were returned to prison.

RAC

Initiated in New Jersey as of July 2008 Was developed after a presentation by

Parole Executive Director at a Governor's Commission on Corrections session

Two regional centers currently operating in NJ

RAC

14-28 day assessment of parolee's current risk/needs/responsivity factors

Parole officer on site An attempt is made to resolve "open detainers" Texas Christian University Drug Screen-II (TCUDS-II)

Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R), PAI (Personality Assessment Inventory) are administered to all RAC residents

Biopsychosocial interview conducted. Behavior in the facility is a part of the assessment

RAC Process

Assessment findings (current RNR) with treatment recommendations are sent to the hearing officers

Revocation hearing is held at RAC Parole board is sent recommendation by

hearing officer to either continue the resident on parole or return him to prison

Case of Mr. M., Mr. T., and Mr. B.

Case of Mr. M.

Male in early 30s with extensive psychiatric, criminal, and substance abuse history.

Absconded from residential centers b/c wanted to join military

Recently took self off psychiatric medication b/c he "felt great!"

At RAC hearing was r/c to residential center for offenders with psychiatric and substance abuse problems

Case of Mr. T. Male in his mid 20s with an extensive criminal history

and substance abuse problems. Absconded from a residential program after arguing

with and then allegedly being threatened by a gang leader.

When first arrived at RAC, asked to be sent back to prison as he stated that he would probably use drugs if given the opportunity.

Mr. T. was given a couple days to get acclimated to program. His options were then discussed with him, and he agreed to wait for hearing results.

Was recommended to a residential program with intensive substance abuse treatment.

Case of Mr. B.

Male in his mid-30s with a moderate criminal history (mostly nuisance offenses) and substance abuse problems.

Sent to RAC after being discharged from a residential program for reportedly not liking the accommodations at his placement.

Did not think he had a substance abuse problem. Mr. B. was r/c to another residential program with

substance abuse treatment. He refused placement and was returned to prison.

Ostermann Study of the RAC Continuation on Parole (COP) Group

Of those COP’ed (55-60%) from RAC: 11 (6.1%) came from an electronic monitoring

caseload 66 (36.5%) came from a Community Programs

(CP) treatment facility 64 (35.4%) came from a Day Treatment

Program 23 (12.7%) came from general parole

supervision 17 (9.4%) came from “intense supervision”

Ostermann Findings on (COP) Group

First assignment after RAC for COPs include: 22 (12.2%) were assigned to an electronic

monitoring caseload 150 (82.9%) were assigned to a Community

Program treatment facility 4 (2.2%) were assigned to parole on an out of

state warrant 3 (1.7%) were assigned to regular supervision 2 (1.1%) maxed directly from RAC

Findings of RAC COP Group

For those COP’ed from RAC, outcomes have been: 36 (19.9%) were returned to prison on a technical

parole violation 39 (21.5%) successfully completed parole (maxed

supervision) 94 (51.9%) are still successfully engaged in parole 4 (2.2%) have a hold warrant out for them or enforced

upon them 7 (3.9%) have a missing warrant out on them and are

being actively pursued 1 (0.6%) died

COP Results

26.0% of those COP’ed from RAC eventually were returned to prison for a variety of reasons.

73.4% have either successfully completed parole or remain pro-socially engaged in the parole process.

RAC Cost Avoidance Figures

The RAC program saved New Jersey more than $2 million during fiscal year 2009

Expected to prevent $14 million in incarceration costs during Fiscal 2010

Recipient of the 2009 Council of State Governments Innovations Award

RAC Pilot Experience (RNR at the agency level)

Institutionsl system buy-in from the officers to the Director has been vital to the success of RAC

Meeting with probation boards and probation officers to educate them about the assessment process has been critical (needs and responsivity)

Orientation of new RAC residents has been critical(responsivity)

DOC "buy-in" has been critical to the process

John Jay College Study

Two groups (Halfway Back n=227 and Matched Comparison n=392 ) were followed 12-18 months postrelease during 2005-2006.

Significant differences in re-offending favoring the Halfway Back program persisted 12 to18 months postrelease.

Cost analyses found that Halfway Back saved NJ $1.3 million dollars in incarceration costs for every 100 technical violators.

Recently published in Criminal Justice Policy Review

Adaptive Programming

Placing people in the appropriate treatment categories requires a rigorous assessment of their risks and needs.

Offenders may be less than reliable sources of information. Evaluators may not have access to a good database to assist with making the initial

proper recommendations. People’s lives change in unpredictable ways such that they make become more or less

risky during the treatment timeframe. Individual treatment plans have to adapt to their clients’ changing circumstances.

See Marlowe, Festinger, Dugosh, Benasutti, Fox, & Croft. Adaptive Programming Improves Outcomes in Drug Court: An Experimental Trial. Criminal Justice and Behavior (2012) Vol. 39 (4), 514-532

Adaptive Programming

Adaptive programming means that the supervision and treatment is adjusted based on the actual performance of the person in treatment.

For example, a person originally classified as low risk/low need may exhibit behaviors that suggest a need for more intense supervision and treatment.

One may determine that a person actually has symptoms of dependency and not just abuse or misuse. Punishing this individual for positive urines may not be the most effective method, rather increasing treatment services may make the most sense.

Programs benefit from developing adaptive algorithms

Adaptive Algorithms

Algorithms or decision trees are useful to determine a structure for adaptive programming. In a drug court example, one may use decision tree to determine frequency of court hearings (more frequent for high risk), determine whether a person is acting non-compliant (number of missed counseling sessions, failures to provide urine samples) or non-responsive to the current level of treatment ( number of positive drug urines).

Adaptive programming and the risk/needs matrix can be used in a variety of settings including drug court, intensive outpatient treatment, and residential treatment.

DSM-V for Substance Abuse Disorders The DSM-V diagnosis for substance abuse

disorders collapses the abuse and dependence diagnoses.

The legal problem criterion was removed. 11 symptoms representing a mixture of prior

DSM criteria for abuse and dependence. Severity specifiers using number of criteria met Physiological dependence or not Course specifiers are described e.g. in a

controlled environment

DSM-V Implications

The differentiation between abuse and dependence have been eliminated; changing substance use to a dimensional rather than categorical diagnosis.

May make it more difficult to decide category of risk and treatment as abusers’ needs are different than people with substance dependence (addicts).

IBR HOME PAGE

MANUALS FORMS EVIDENCE

ABOUT IBR-TCU STAFF PUBLICATIONS PRESENTATIONS PROJECTS NEWSLETTERS

OTHER LINKS WHAT’S NEW

DATOS Selected brttns

EVIDENCE

SUMMARY

TCU Mapping-

Enhanced Counseling

Treatment Process

Counseling Manuals

Corrections-

Based Treatment

National Evaluations

Organizational Readiness

Assessment Fact Sheets (with norms)

A National Research Center for addiction treatment studies in community and correctional

settings (over 600 free resource files

available)

Guide for New Visitors Manuals

Forms

Conceptual Guides Publications

© 2011

Conclusions

Technical violators have inundated the prison and jail system in many States

Assessment (RNR) and treatment (using RNR results) as an alternative to incarceration makes good sense from a public safety, humanistic and cost-avoidance standpoint.

Graduated sanctions and use of adaptive supervisions before TVs are sent to prison make sense.

Questions? Comments?

For copies of slides contact:Ralph Fretz, Ph.D.Director of Research and AssessmentCommunity Education Centersrfretz@cecintl.com