Establishing a Risk-Dosage Research Agenda: Implications for Policy and Practice

• Author: Edward J. Latessa,Matthew D. Makarios,Kimberly Gentry Sperber
• Published date: 01 June 2013
• DOI: 10.3818/JRP.15.1.2013.123
• Date: 01 June 2013
• Subject Matter: Toward Evidence-Based Decision Making in Community Corrections: Research and Strategies for Successful Implementation



*



Establishing a Risk-Dosage Research Agenda:

Implications for Policy and Practice

Kimberly Gentry Sperber

Talbert House

Edward J. Latessa

University of Cincinnati

Matthew D. Makarios

University of Wisconsin - Parkside

JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2013

© 2013 Justice Research and Statistics Association

DOI: 10.3818/JRP.15.1.2013.123

* Abstract

Numerous studies on the risk principle provide evidence that correctional practitioners

should vary treatment by risk by providing more services to higher risk offenders than

to lower risk offenders. Until recently, however, few studies have identif‌ied how much

more treatment is required to impact recidivism for higher risk offenders compared to

their lower risk counterparts. This article summarizes the empirical evidence on the

risk-dosage relationship, identif‌ies remaining gaps in the literature, and argues for a

comprehensive research agenda that focuses on the most effective execution of risk-

based dosage in corrections. Findings from current studies are also discussed in terms

of policy and practical implications for the f‌ield.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kimberly Gentry Sperber,

Talbert House, 2600 Victory Parkway, Cincinnati, OH 45206. Email: kimberly.sperber@

talberthouse.org.

To w a r d Ev i d E n c E -Ba s E d dEc i s i o n Ma k i n g i n co M M u n i T y co r r E c T i o n s :

rE s E a r c h a n d sT r a T E g i E s f o r su c c E s s f u l iM p l E M E n Ta T i o n

P



The risk principle suggests that correctional practitioners should allocate supervi-

sion and program resources by offender risk, with higher risk offenders receiving

more intense supervision and services than lower risk offenders (Andrews, Bonta,

& Hoge, 1990). To date, no fewer than seven meta-analyses involving more than

400 primary studies have demonstrated empirical support for the risk principle

(Dowden & Andrews, 1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2003; Hanson, Bourgon, Helmus, &

Hodgson, 2009; Lipsey, 2009; Lipsey, Landenberger, & Wilson, 2007). Collectively,

these studies have demonstrated that correctional interventions are more likely to

have a positive impact on moderate- and high-risk offenders than low-risk offenders

(e.g., Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2004; Lovins, Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Smith 2007)

and that reductions in recidivism are greatest for highest risk offenders and minimal,

if not iatrogenic, for low-risk offenders (Latessa, Lovins, & Smith, 2010;

Lovins,

Lowenkamp, & Latessa, 2009; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005). Support for the

risk principle has been demonstrated for juvenile offenders, adult offenders, female

offenders, sex offenders, and violent offenders (Lovins et al., 2007; Dowden & An-

drews, 1999b, 2000; Hanson et al., 2009; Lipsey, 1999; Lipsey et al., 2007; Lovins

et al., 2009; Lowenkamp, Makarios, Latessa, Lemke, & Smith, 2010; Lowenkamp,

Pealer, Smith, & Latessa, 2006).

These f‌indings are clearly relevant to both correctional practitioners and policy

makers whose primary mission is public safety. Research on the risk principle pro-

vides both an empirical and practical rationale that should encourage correctional

practitioners to allocate resources based on criminogenic risk. Combining the em-

pirical evidence with the overarching goal of public safety, we see that targeting

higher risk offenders is imperative because (1) they represent the most risk to pub-

lic safety, (2) the system nets the largest reductions in crime when this group is tar-

geted for interventions, and (3) the system runs the risk of increasing crime when

it focuses on targeting low-risk offenders for interventions. It makes sense, then,

that policy makers would want to ensure that limited correctional resources are re-

served for higher risk offenders. Consequently, we are now seeing various funding

and regulatory bodies require correctional programs to vary services by risk, with

the expectation that higher risk offenders receive more services and supervision

than their lower risk counterparts (e.g., Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and

Correction, 2012).

Knowing that higher risk offenders should receive more services and supervi-

sion than lower risk offenders is not the same as knowing how much more ser-

vice and supervision to provide to higher risk offenders. This leaves correctional

practitioners the task of determining the appropriate levels of service to provide

to offenders of varying risk. Practitioners looking to the criminological literature

for guidance on this issue will f‌ind that although much research indicates that pro-

grams that target higher risk cases are more likely to be effective, relatively little

research has examined the impact of varying levels of treatment dosage by risk.

The result is that practitioners have few practical guidelines available for matching

program dosage to offender risk.