What does WHAT WORKS

have to do with my work?

Ross FeenanManager, Offender Assessments

CSNSW

What Works – now moving in 2 separate ways

RNR plusGoo

d Live

s Mod

elDesistance

model

What Work

s For

Who &

When

Maximisin

geffect sizesChanging

Organisatio

nal Syste

ms and

Individual work

RISK

WHO TO TREAT

(and how much)

NEED

WHAT TO TREAT

RESPONSIVITY

HOW TO TREAT

Adherence to RNR Principles = Recidivism

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

None One Two Three

Effe

ct S

ize

(r)

General Violent Females Young Offenders Sex Offenders

R-N-R Principles Have changed our organisations since 2001

ASSESSMENTS – VISAT, ROR, ORNI-R, LSI-R, LS-CMI, LS-RNR, YLSI, CVTRQ

PROGRAMS – Groupwork, evidence based, accredited and focused on “needs”

CASE MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL WORK?

Snapshot of what Probation

Officers Do Behind Closed

Doors

The Manitoba “Black Box” Study

Bonta et. al. 2008

Manitoba Black Box Study

(Bonta et al., 2004, 2008)

211 audiotapes of client interviewsa) Do offenders’ plans contain criminogenic needs?

b) Does supervision target identified criminogenic needs?

c) Are probation officers using the techniques associated with reduced recidivism (i.e., cognitive-behavioural strategies, problem-solving)?

d) Any differences?

The

“Cen

tral E

ight

” Risk

Fac

tors

The

“Big

Fou

r”

Ri

sk F

acto

rs History of antisocial behaviour

Antisocial personality pattern

Antisocial cognition

Antisocial associates Family and/or marital

School and/or work

Leisure and/or recreation

Substance abuse

The “Big Four” & “Central Eight” Criminogenic Needs

Assessment → Plans Only 39% of identified needs (using the PRA) had a

matching intervention strategy

Need Assessed In Plan

Substance Abuse 37% 79%

Emotional 23% 71%

Employment 41% 10%

Peer Problems 48% Not recorded - Too few Attitude 56%

Adherence to the Need Principle?

Need Area % Discussed When Need Present

Family/Marital 90

Substance Abuse 78

Employment/Academic 57

Peer Problems 21

Attitudes 9

Probation Conditions & Recidivism

Compliance with the probation conditions is a fact of community supervision

But too much emphasis can backfire

Time Recidivism

10 minutes 18.9%

15 minutes or more 42.3%

Rates adjusted for risk level

Targeting Criminogenic Needs:Effecting Recidivism

Discussing criminogenic needs were related to reduced recidivism

More focus on criminogenic needs, lower the recidivism

Length of Discussion Recidivism (n)

Low (0-15 minutes) 59.8% (49)

Medium (20-30 minutes) 47.6% (26)

High (40+ minutes) 33.3% (3)

2009 NSW Replication Study Joanne Kennedy replicated Black Box study

in 2009 Total sample – 1,666 Looked at the relationship between

Assessment (LSI-R), case plan factors, case plan strategies and discussion case notes

Similar patterns were found

Assessment → Plan (NSW)“CONSIDERABLE NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT” – LSI-R

Factor Strategy

Education/Employment 84% 54%Finances 31% 13%Family/Marital 68% 56%Accommodation 70% 34%Leisure/Recreation 23% 22%Companions/Associates 21% 32%Alcohol/drug problems 94% 93%Emotional/personal 82% 81%Attitude/orientation 34% 17%

Discussion of Needs (NSW)

Criminogenic Needs (LSI-R)Number of interviews where Factor was relevant

Number of interviews where factor was discussed

Education/Employment 69% 48%Finances 32% 22%Family/Marital 66% 48%Accommodation 45% 40%Leisure/Recreation 21% 11%Companions/Associates 21% 20%Alcohol/drug problems 83% 69%Emotional/personal 62% 54%Attitude/orientation 30% 17%

STICS: (Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision)

Training in the RNR model ofCommunity Supervision

Bonta, Bourgon, Rugge, Scott, Yessine, Gutierrez & Li (Nov 2011)

STICS format

3 Day Training Teach skills to facilitate change in RNR framework Teach the “how to” with clients Provide structure

On-Going Clinical Support Monthly STICS Meetings Refresher Course Feedback on audiotapes

Effects on Probation Officers

STICS Officers v

Untrained “Control” Officers

Relevant & Irrelevant Discussions?

Is time spent on… Criminogenic needs Focus on procriminal attitudes

Or… Non-criminogenic needs Probation conditions

Addressing what matters most…P

erce

nt

Overall Officer Interview Skills

Structuring Relationship BehaviouralTechniques

Cognitive Techniques Effective CorrectionalSkills

mea

n z

scor

e

Control STICS

So Evidence says…

STICS changes PO behaviour Enhances the officers’ RNR practices

More focus on criminogenic needs, especially antisocial attitudes

Less spent on non-criminogenic needs & the conditions of probation

Better relationship, structuring & cognitive-behavioural skills for interpersonal influence

Effects on Clients

Did STICS reduce recidivism?

Are client outcomes different? “Personal” caseload recidivism rates at

1 & 2 Years

PO Effectiveness?Before vs. After STICS

Recidivism before STICS

Note: No Differences: STICS PO higher recidivism prior to training

Recidivism after STICS

Note: 13% DifferenceEven greater reductions in recidivism was achieved for those who continued with

the monthly meetings, feedback and refresher courses (15% )

1 Year Recidivism Differences

Group Pre Post Change

Control 34% 33% ↓ 1%

STICS with some clinical support

33% 24% ↓ 9%

STICS with high clinical Support

41% 15% ↓ 26%

Intensive Training and Support in What Works Works!

Intensive RNR training improves PO skills & Interventions

Intensive RNR training reduces reoffending On-going clinical support very important Cognitive Behavioural skills hardest to learn

Requires time & clinical support

SO HOW DO WE GET HOLD OF IT?Or do we attempt it ourselves??

Is it worth it?YES It works. Working with clients this way reduces

recidivism. Adhering to RNR principles has to be organisational,

functional, be supported in policy and in practice.

NO Costly to put all staff through thorough training and

have ongoing STICS type support Only one study so far Some staff are already over “What Works”

STICS Report

More information on STICS:

www.publicsafety.gc.ca

Or contactross.feenan@dcs.nsw.gov.au

Manager, Offender AssessmentsCorrective Services NSW