Risk tells us who, but not what or how" empirical assessment of the complexity of criminogenic needs to inform correctional programming

Research Summary The current study used latent class analysis (LCA) to identify profiles of criminogenic needs in a sample of 17,252 community-supervised individuals from one state's probation system. The purpose of this research was to illustrate the complexity of offender need profiles to inform the development and implementation of correctional interventions. The LCA analyses revealed four classes of dynamic needs. Conditional item probabilities were examined to label the four classes based on their likelihood of presenting with static risk, criminogenic needs, and destabilizing factors (i.e., factors that indirectly relate to recidivism). The four classes were characterized by the following: a low probability of both risks and destabilizers (LN-LD), a moderate probability of risk and criminogenic needs with a high probability of multiple destabilizers (MN-HD), a high probability of risk and needs with moderate probabilities of destabilizers (HN-MD), and a high probability of static and criminogenic needs and destabilizers (HN-HD). Finally, the relationship between latent class membership and three separate recidivism outcomes was assessed. Consistent with study hypotheses, individuals in latent classes characterized by a greater probability of criminogenic needs and lifestyle destabilizers were more likely to experience subsequent criminal justice involvement, regardless of risk level. Policy Implications Simplifying the complexity of offender risk and need profiles through empirical classification has direct implications for policy and practice. First, it clarifies whether dynamic needs and/or risk should drive decision making. Second, the integration of dynamic risk factors into the case management process can inform strategies to mitigate static risk and inform the development of new and improved interventions. The current study findings provide insight into the clustering of dynamic risk factors within individuals. This classification structure has the potential to increase the precision of case management decisions by identifying targets for programming that are likely to co-occur for many offenders. Specifically, programs can be developed to tailor components to specific static risk and need profiles. Language: en

[1]  C. Hollin,et al.  Who Benefits From Cognitive Skills Programs? , 2014 .

[2]  F. Taxman,et al.  Which Criminogenic Need Changes Are Most Important in Promoting Desistance From Crime and Substance Use? , 2014, Criminal justice and behavior.

[3]  Michael S. Caudy,et al.  Justice Reinvestment in the United States: An Empirical Assessment of the Potential Impact of Increased Correctional Programming on Recidivism , 2014 .

[4]  F. Taxman,et al.  How well do dynamic needs predict recidivism? Implications for risk assessment and risk reduction , 2013 .

[5]  Jessica Woodhams,et al.  The Sequencing of Interventions with Offenders: An Addition to the Responsivity Principle , 2013 .

[6]  Edward J. Latessa,et al.  Establishing a Risk-Dosage Research Agenda: Implications for Policy and Practice , 2013 .

[7]  Joel Miller,et al.  Practitioner Compliance With Risk/Needs Assessment Tools , 2013 .

[8]  Edward J. Latessa,et al.  Examining the Interaction between Level of Risk and Dosage of Treatment , 2013 .

[9]  F. Taxman,et al.  The Plight of Providing Appropriate Substance Abuse Treatment Services to Offenders: Modeling the Gaps in Service Delivery , 2013 .

[10]  Faye S. Taxman,et al.  Simulation Strategies to Reduce Recidivism , 2013 .

[11]  David B. Wilson,et al.  Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts , 2012 .

[12]  D. Marlowe Evidence-Based Policies and Practices for Drug-Involved Offenders , 2011 .

[13]  D. Polaschek Many sizes fit all: A preliminary framework for conceptualizing the development and provision of cognitive-behavioral rehabilitation programs for offenders , 2011 .

[14]  Christopher J. Sullivan,et al.  Delinquent Behavior Across Adolescence: Investigating the Shifting Salience of Key Criminological Predictors , 2010 .

[15]  Christopher J. Sullivan,et al.  Adolescent Risk Behavior Subgroups: An Empirical Assessment , 2010, Journal of youth and adolescence.

[16]  Stacy L. Frazier,et al.  Toward the Effective and Efficient Measurement of Implementation Fidelity , 2010, Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research.

[17]  Susan Michie,et al.  Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: the need for a scientific method , 2009, Implementation science : IS.

[18]  Mark W. Lipsey,et al.  The Primary Factors that Characterize Effective Interventions with Juvenile Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Overview , 2009 .

[19]  Charles Abraham,et al.  Advancing the science of behaviour change: a plea for scientific reporting. , 2008, Addiction.

[20]  M. Lipsey,et al.  Effects of Cognitive Behavioral Programs for Criminal Offenders , 2007 .

[21]  S. D. Gottfredson,et al.  Statistical Risk Assessment: Old Problems and New Applications , 2006 .

[22]  D. A. Andrews,et al.  The Recent Past and Near Future of Risk and/or Need Assessment , 2006 .

[23]  Christopher T. Lowenkamp,et al.  The Risk Principle in Action: What Have We Learned From 13,676 Offenders and 97 Correctional Programs? , 2006 .

[24]  D. Farrington,et al.  How effective is the “Reasoning and Rehabilitation” programme in reducing reoffending? A meta-analysis of evaluations in four countries , 2006 .

[25]  Mark W. Lipsey,et al.  The positive effects of cognitive–behavioral programs for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment , 2005 .

[26]  Christopher T. Lowenkamp,et al.  INCREASING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMMING THROUGH THE RISK PRINCIPLE: IDENTIFYING OFFENDERS FOR RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT* , 2005 .

[27]  David B. Wilson,et al.  A Quantitative Review of Structured, Group-Oriented, Cognitive-Behavioral Programs for Offenders , 2005 .

[28]  Guy Bourgon,et al.  Transferring the Principles of Effective Treatment into a “Real World” Prison Setting , 2005 .

[29]  J. Bonta Offender Risk Assessment , 2002 .

[30]  D. Rubin,et al.  Testing the number of components in a normal mixture , 2001 .

[31]  S. Schoenwald,et al.  Effectiveness, transportability, and dissemination of interventions: what matters when? , 2001, Psychiatric services.

[32]  B. Muthén,et al.  Integrating person-centered and variable-centered analyses: growth mixture modeling with latent trajectory classes. , 2000, Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research.

[33]  Don A. Andrews,et al.  What Works for Female Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Review , 1999 .

[34]  D. A. Andrews,et al.  Classification for Effective Rehabilitation , 1990 .

[35]  Marguerite Q. Warren,et al.  Classification of Offenders as an Aid to Efficient Management and Effective Treatment , 1971 .