Correctional Policy: Preparing for EBPs

Faye S. Taxman, Ph.D.University Professor

George Mason UniversityAdvancing Correctional Excellence!

http://gunston.gmu.edu/cebcp/ftaxman@gmu.edu

Acknowledgements: NIDA U01 DA 16213; CJ-DATS is funded by NIDA in collaboration with: SAMHSA, CDC, NIAAA, and BJA;

NIDA R01 DA017729

GEORGE

MASON

UNIVERSITY

Acknowledgements

• Anne Rhodes, M.S., George Mason University• Carrie Oser, Ph.D., University of Kentucky• Craig Henderson, Ph.D., Sam Houston

University

GMU

Business leaders, political leaders, military leaders, entrepreneurs all need to learn and practice the same fundamental rule of thumb: Ask the last question first. And

that is: What’s the point of this exercise?

If you do not begin a new campaign, enterprise, military engagement or business with a clear definition of victory, you’ve set yourself for failure. If you don’t know what success is, how do you know when you’ve achieved it? If you don’t know if your strategy and tactics will take you there? If you don’t have a clear understanding of what you hope to achieve, how will you be able to justify the time, energy, human and financial resources you commit to the effort?

It’s the lesson that the United States learned in the Vietnam War, in which we managed to win every battle and still left the country having lost the war. The critical missing element to that ill-conceived war was a lack of clear definition of victory.

Alan Webber, founder of Fast Company Magazine, Washington Post, Sun Aug 30, 2009.

GMU

What Works for Offenders?• ASSESSMENT & CASE PLANNING: Use standard tools

to identify problem severity and link to programming• TREATMENT:– Treatment that is multi-dimensional, includes criminogenic

risk factors & criminal thinking– Address co-occurring disorders, criminogenic factors, etc.– Skill building, recovery models, not traditional

alcohol/educational programs and outpatient programs – Dosage (length of treatment) is important through stages:

motivate, change, reinforce• COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT: Rewards & Incentives• WORKING ALLIANCE: Rapport, Relationship

GMU

The Quest of EBPs• Evidence-based practices are specified systems,

programs, and services that are based on research on facets that reduce criminal behavior OR reduce drug use

• EBPs are a tool kit that can be used to advance actual practice, if the goal is to reduce recidivism

• Significant gaps exist between best practices identified by research and their implementation in routine care (Institute of Medicine, 2006).

Is the public or correctional agencies ready for research-based correctional programs?

GMU

Why EBPs are important….Opponents Proponents

• Effect sizes (~ 10%) are too small to have an huge impact

• Drastic policy change like length of incarceration or probation will have a greater impact

• Goal is to prevent crime, not reduce recidivism

• Too hard • Deterrence is more

important • Politicians do not support

this movement

• EBPs are a formula for success

• EBPs can help to professionalize corrections

• Effects are small because..– NOT MUCH

IMPLEMENTATION– Existing structures serve a

small number—7% daily population

• Corrections should be part of the service system to improve outcomes

• Human rightsGMU

Source of Data

• Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS) research cooperative (www.cjdats.org)

• National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices Survey (NCJTPS) is a stratified cluster sample of prisons, jails, community corrections, and substance abuse treatment agencies (n=647) (Taxman et al., 2007).

GMU

National Surveys: Response Rates

• Criminal Justice Treatment Practices– N = 1,902– Adult: 67% Administrators, 75% State Executives– Juveniles: 54% Administrators, 70% State Executives

• COD Survey (only facility administrators of NCJTP)– N = 757– Adult: 63% Administrators– Juvenile: 65% Administrators– Community Treatment Providers: 61%

• Drug Treatment Court Survey – N = 208– Drug Court Coordinators: 68%– Treatment Providers: 75%

Survey administered via mailSurvey administered via mailMulti-level (state agency executive, facility administrator, staff, tx providers, drug court Multi-level (state agency executive, facility administrator, staff, tx providers, drug court coordinators)coordinators)No differences in response rates based on region and facility typeNo differences in response rates based on region and facility type

Taxman, et al 2007; Melnick, et al 2008; Taxman and Perdoni, in pressGMU

Research Questions

• What impact does the perspectives of administrators have on the adoption of evidence based practices?

• What impact, if any, does the nature of the reform have on the adoption of evidence-based practices?

GMU

The Challenge: Using EBPs

Friedmann, Taxman, & Henderson, 2007: Young, Dembo, & Henderson, 2007; Henderson, Taxman & Young, 2008

Setting Mean EBPsAdopted

Adult Prison 5.6

Adult Jail 3.9

Adult CC 5

Juvenile Res. 5.7

Juvenile CC 4.8

Drug Court 5.6

GMU

• = Treatment directors were not assessed on this item^ = Facility administrators were not assessed on this item~ = Adult program treatment directors/facility administrators not assessed on this item

% of Agencies

GMU

% of Respondents Providing EBPs

# of EBPs

% of Agencies

GMU

Cumulative # EBPs Offered

Competing Values: Importance of SUD Treatment to other CJ Services

GMU

SA TX Compared to Other Programs

High Believers: More use of EBPs, County run, in Midwest/Northeast, stronger belief in rehabilitation Low Believers: SouthEqual/Ambivalence: Marginal use of EBPS, Support Rehabilitation, in South/NortheastHenderson & Taxman, 2009 GMU

What style of reform do CJ Agencies pursue?

Clinical orientation=focus on treatment such as therapies and working alliance CJ Innovators=Focus on punishment (sanctions), drug testing, treatmentNone=No clear direction, responsive to setting GMU

EBP by Type of CJ Innovators

GMU

Correlates of Latent Class MembershipClinical vs. CJ System Innovators

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

GMU

Correlates of Latent Class MembershipClinical Innovators vs. Non-Innovators

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

GMU

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 GMU

Correlates of Latent Class MembershipCJ Innovators vs. Non-Innovators

The Importance of Type of Reform Efforts1. Agencies pursue different avenues regarding their adoption of

evidence-based practices

2. Some focus on a more clinical perspective; others reinforce an offender management (safety) perspective

3. Criminal Justice Innovators were more likely than Clinical Innovators to be a community corrections agency

4. Clinical Innovators perceived a higher need for training than Criminal Justice Innovators

5. Relative to the Non-Innovators:a) Clinical Innovators had higher rehabilitation orientations, saw a greater need

for training, and had more internal support for new programmingb) Criminal Justice Innovators also had higher rehabilitation orientations

GMU

Organizational Structure and

Leadership

Community Setting

Administrator:•Human Services Background

•Increased Knowledge of EBPs

•Supports Rehabilitation

Organizational Culture and

Climate

Learning

Performance

Quality Tx

Training Resources

Physical Facilities

Internal Support

Training

Resources

What Matters in Adoption of EBPS?

Network Connections

Integration

Friedmann, Taxman, & Henderson, 2007: Henderson, Taxman & Young, 2008GMU

Factors to Improve Networkness? Integration or Boundaryless Processes of SA & CJ Agencies

Most Typical Activities:• Share Information with

agencies

• Develop Client Eligibility Across Agencies

• Written Program Programs

• Joint Staffing of Program

• Modified Program to Meet Correctional and SA Agencies

• Written MOU between agency

Average Number of Activities Integrated:

Drug Court=6.1

Probation/Parole=4.5

Prison=3.2

Jails=3.7

Interagency integration is associated with more use of EBPs, more holistic services, and improved outcomes

Fletcher, et al 2009; Taxman & Perdoni, 2007 GMU

Unlikely to Reduce Recidivism• Too few offenders exposed to treatment

◄ Less than 11% can receive tx a year; on any given day, ~7.6% are in treatment

• Treatment is inconsistent with needs– Not multi-dimensional—should address 3+ conditions including criminal values/thinkingGMU

End Goal?• What should be the content of correctional

reform?– Volatile environment – Reducing sentence lengths is only a short term and

does NOT clarify the mission– Punishment vs. Prosocial Behavior

• Where should we go?– Therapeutic Alliance– Working Alliance/Relationship– Get political support through mandating legislation– Focus on Administrators as Leaders AS the means to

advance practice

GMU

The Failure to Define the Mission of Corrections to include EBPs and Service

Orientation Impacts…..

• Use of working relationships with other organizations• Emphasis on recidivism reduction practices• Training of staff• Staff Orientation• Types of Administrators hired• Legitimacy of correctional practice

A renewed focus on viewing corrections as a service provider (public health) will serve better outcomes

GMU

GMU

Useful Resources

TIP 44. Substance Abuse Treatment for Adults in the Criminal Justice System

GMU

Fletcher, B. W., Lehman, W. E., Wexler, H. K., Melnick, G., Taxman, F. S., & Young, D. W. (2009). Measuring collaboration and integration activities in criminal justice and substance abuse treatment agencies. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103(Supplement 1), S54-S64.

Henderson, C. E., & Taxman, F. S. (2009). Competing values among criminal justice administrators: The importance of substance abuse treatment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103(Supplement 1), S7-S16.

Henderson, C. E., Young, D. W., Farrell, J., & Taxman, F. S. (2009). Associations among state and local organizational contexts: Use of evidence-based practices in the criminal justice system. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103(Supplement 1), S23-S32.

Lehman, W. E., FLETCHER, B. W., Wexler, H. K., & Melnick, G. (2009). Organizational factors and collaboration and integration activities in criminal justice and drug abuse treatment agencies. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103(Supplement 1), S65-S72.

McCarty, D., & Chandler, R. K. (2009). Understanding the importance of organizational and system variables on addiction treatment services within criminal justice settings. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103(Supplement 1), S91-S93.

Melnick, G., Ulaszek, W. R., Lin, H., & Wexler, H. K. (2009). When goals diverge: Staff consensus and the organizational climate. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103(Supplement 1), S17-S22.

Oser, C. B., Knudsen, H. K., Staton-Tindall, M., Taxman, F., & Leukefeld, C. (2009). Organizational-level correlates of the provision of detoxification services and medication-based treatments for substance abuse in correctional institutions. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103(Supplement 1), S73-S81.

Oser, C., Knudsen, H., Staton-Tindall, M., & Leukefeld, C. (2009). The adoption of wraparound services among substance abuse treatment organizations serving criminal offenders: The role of a women-specific program. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103(Supplement 1), S82-S90.

Taxman, F. S., & Kitsantas, P. (2009). Availability and capacity of substance abuse programs in correctional settings: A classification and regression tree analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103(Supplement 1), S43-S53.

Taxman, F. S., Henderson, C. E., & Belenko, S. (2009). Organizational context, systems change, and adopting treatment delivery systems in the criminal justice system. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103(Supplement 1), S1-S6.

Young, D. W., Farrell, J. L., Henderson, C. E., & Taxman, F. S. (2009). Filling service gaps: Providing intensive treatment services for offenders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103(Supplement 1), S33-S42.

Special Edition of Drug and Alcohol Dependence