Needle in a Haystack

• Date: 01 February 2015
• Author: Kelly Hannah‐Moffat
• Published date: 01 February 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12121

POLICY ESSAY

CRIMINOGENIC NEEDS AND

CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMMING

Needle in a Haystack

Logical Parameters of Treatment Based on Actuarial

Risk–Needs Assessments

Kelly Hannah-Moat

University of Toronto

Risk/needs assessments continue to dominate correctional management and pro-

gramming. Although the science behind them is known to be imprecise, actuarial

assessments are routinely adopted and rigorously defended. A polarized debate

has emerged between those who promote actuarial assessments and their continued refine-

ment and those who question the epistemological basis of this practice and/or advocate

for blended models that integrate empirically structured assessment and discretion (Falzer,

2013; Hart and Cooke, 2013; Neller and Frederick, 2013; Rossegger et al., 2013).1Within

this context, researchers and practitioners recognize the complexity involved in issues such

as treatment, desistance, and recidivism.

Taxman and Caudy (2015, this issue) tackle some of the complexities associated with

attempts to match programs and offenders in a meaningful way, and they call for a better

understanding of the “comorbidity of criminogenic needs” (i.e., the number of, interactions

between, and salience of these needs). Taxman and Caudy explore how risk/need profiles

can be assessed and individualized to improve the efficacy of correctional programming.

Specifically,they argue that offenders vary considerably in terms of risks/needs and that non-

criminogenic destabilizing factors (e.g., employment problems, housing, and educational

deficits) should also be considered, adding more complexity to the task of assessing appro-

priate programming. They apply the statistical technique of latent class analysis to explore

whether and how needs may cluster to identify common need profiles that can inform case

management and treatment interventions. The idea of tailored treatment interventions is

Direct correspondence to Kelly Hannah-Moffat, University of Toronto, 3359 Mississauga Rd. N., Room 2100,

Mississauga, Ontario L5L 1C6, Canada (e-mail: hannah.moffat@utoronto.ca).

1. This debate is especially salient in the area of predicting violence or sexual offending.

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12121 C2015 American Society of Criminology 113

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 14 rIssue 1