Criminogenic Risk, Criminogenic Need, Collective Efficacy, and Juvenile Delinquency

• Date: 01 September 2020
• Published date: 01 September 2020
• Author: Riley Tucker,Michael C. Gearhart
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854820928568
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2020, Vol. 47, No. 9, September 2020, 1116 –1135.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820928568

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2020 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1116

CRIMINOGENIC RISK, CRIMINOGENIC NEED,

COLLECTIVE EFFICACY, AND JUVENILE

DELINQUENCY

MICHAEL C. GEARHART

University of Missouri–St. Louis

RILEY TUCKER

Northeastern University

Juvenile delinquency is influenced by reciprocal relationships between micro-level and macro-level factors. The risk,

need, and responsivity (RNR) model, and collective efficacy theory are two commonly used frameworks in juvenile justice

research. This study builds on previous research by testing indicators of both the RNR model and collective efficacy

theory as predictors of self-reported juvenile delinquency utilizing data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing

Study. Taken as a whole, our findings suggest that individual-level factors are strong predictors of self-reported juvenile

delinquency, whereas the relationship between collective efficacy and juvenile delinquency is limited. This finding empha-

sizes the importance of addressing individual needs when implementing community-level interventions aimed at prevent-

ing delinquency. Failure to do so may result in merely displacing juvenile delinquency as opposed to helping youth desist

from delinquent behaviors.

Keywords: risk–need–responsivity; criminology; criminological theory; juvenile delinquency; youth; parenting; prevention

INTRODUCTION

Juvenile delinquency is influenced by complex relationships between micro-level and

macro-level factors. The risk, need, and responsivity (RNR) model, and collective efficacy

theory are two commonly used frameworks in juvenile justice research. The RNR model

focuses on an individual’s risk of reoffending, and their social needs, in an attempt to refer

individuals to the appropriate treatment that will help individuals desist from delinquent

behavior (Andrews et al., 1990). Collective efficacy theory is the process by which social

resources are mobilized in communities to address a variety of issues including juvenile

delinquency (Sampson et al., 1997). Meta-analyses support collective efficacy theory (Pratt

& Cullen, 2005) and RNR (Olver et al., 2009) as key frameworks associated with lower

levels of juvenile delinquency.

AUTHORS’ NOTE: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michael C. Gearhart,

School of Social Work, University of Missouri–St. Louis, 1 University Blvd., 205 Bellerive Hall, St. Louis, MO

63121; e-mail: gearhartm@umsl.edu.

928568CJBXXX10.1177/0093854820928568Criminal Justice and BehaviorGearhart, Tucker /

research-article2020

Gearhart, Tucker / RISK, NEED, COLLECTIVE EFFICACY 1117

Recent research on collective efficacy theory (Tucker et al., 2019) highlights that,

although collective efficacy is traditionally studied as a macro-level theory explaining juve-

nile delinquency, youth-perceived collective efficacy is largely influenced by individual-

level factors. By extension, the relationship between collective efficacy and juvenile

delinquency is shaped by individual-level factors (Gearhart, 2019b). Conversely, RNR is a

micro-level framework that incorporates key factors beyond the individual including

schools, family, and peers (Andrews et al., 1990). Although both frameworks have a broad

base of empirical support, and both theories acknowledge the interdependence of micro-

level and macro-level factors, research has yet to study both frameworks simultaneously.

The goal of the present study is to test indicators of RNR and collective efficacy theory as

predictors of self-reported juvenile delinquency in an attempt to refine our understanding of

the micro-level and macro-level factors that influence juvenile delinquency.

RNR

The RNR model is rooted in general personality and cognitive social learning theory

of criminal behavior, and is comprised by three principles: risk, need, and responsivity

(Bonta & Andrews, 2017). The purpose of the risk principle is to assess an individual’s

risk of reoffending and match their level of need to the appropriate treatment (Andrews

et al., 1990). Individuals with a higher risk of offending should be referred to more

intensive treatment (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). Commonly studied risk factors for recidi-

vism are offense history, education, use of leisure time, social networks, substance use,

family circumstances, personality, behaviors, and procriminal attitudes and orientation

(Bonta & Andrews, 2017). Risk factors fall into one of two categories: static and

dynamic. Static risk factors, such as criminal history, cannot be changed through inter-

vention, whereas dynamic risk factors can be influenced (e.g., education). The need

principle identifies dynamic risk factors that are suitable targets for rehabilitative treat-

ment. For example, an individual with a high criminogenic risk score due to substance

use should receive services that address substance use.

The responsivity principle focuses on treatment delivery and emphasizes the importance

of tailoring interventions to the individual by matching treatment to an individual’s learning

style (Andrews et al., 2006). Andrews and Bonta (2010) highlight the importance of cogni-

tive–behavioral interventions for reducing recidivism with cognitive–behavioral therapy

(CBT) being a commonly used approach (Andrews et al., 1990; Lipsey & Cullen, 2007). In

general, CBT targets an individual’s cognitions and feelings, identifying antisocial internal

processes, and replacing them with prosocial processes (Vaske et al., 2011). Prosocial

thoughts and feelings can lead to prosocial behaviors, which in turn decrease the likelihood

of committing delinquent acts (Vaske et al., 2011). Meta-analyses consistently demonstrate

the predictive validity of criminogenic risk of recidivism in multiple samples including

youth (Olver et al., 2009).

Although the RNR model is supported as a predictor of recidivism among youth, research

focusing on the application of the RNR model in the juvenile justice system is relatively

new (Brogan et al., 2015; Singh et al., 2014). It is important to study the RNR model given

the differences between adults and adolescents that may affect the relationships among

criminogenic risk, needs, and recidivism (Steinberg, 2003). For example, youth are more

susceptible to peer influence than adults (Brown & Larson, 2009; Steinberg & Monahan,