Risk Tells Us Who, But Not What or How

• Date: 01 February 2015
• Author: Faye S. Taxman,Michael S. Caudy
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12116
• Published date: 01 February 2015

RESEARCH ARTICLE

CRIMINOGENIC NEEDS AND

CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMMING

Risk Tells Us Who, But Not What or How

Empirical Assessment of the Complexity of Criminogenic

Needs to Inform Correctional Programming

Faye S. Tax man

George Mason University

Michael S. Caudy

University of Texas at San Antonio

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 proba-

tion 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 LCAanalyses 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 character-

ized by a greater probability of criminogenic needs and lifestyle destabilizers were more

likely to experience subsequent criminal justice involvement, regardless of risk level.

This study was funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance–2009-DG-BX-K026. All opinions are those of the

researchers and not the government agencies. Direct correspondence to Faye S. Taxman, Department of

Criminology, Law & Society, George Mason University, 4087 University Drive, Suite 4100, MS 6D3, Fairfax, VA

22030 (e-mail: ftaxman@gmu.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12116 C2015 American Society of Criminology 71

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 14 rIssue 1

Research Article Criminogenic Needs

Policy Implications

Simplifying the complexity of offender risk and need profiles through empirical classifi-

cation 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 manage-

ment decisions by identifying targets for programming that are likely to co-occur for

many offenders. Specifically, programscan be developed to tailor components to specific

static risk and need profiles.

Keywords

risk and need assessment, differential interventions, destabilizers, offender treatment,

evidence-based practices

“One of the few facts agreed upon in the field of corrections is that offenders

are not all alike.” (Warren, 1971: 239)

Offender heterogeneity is a considerable barrier to the delivery of effective correc-

tional interventions. Throughout the past several decades, research and policy

initiatives have been devoted to reducing recidivism by matching individuals to

correctional management strategies and rehabilitative programming. Although considerable

progress has been made in terms of classifying offenders and developing interventions to

foster individual-level change, as a field, we still have a ways to go.

Perhaps the most significant improvementin the field of corrections over the last several

decades has been the advancement and routinization of risk and risk–need assessment

instruments within justice agencies (Andrews, Bonta, and Wormith, 2006; Bonta, 2002).

Actuarial risk-prediction instruments can tell us which offenders are most likely to reoffend

as well as whom among the offender population we might want to target for more intensive

rehabilitative programming.1Adheringto the risk principle by targeting higher risk offenders

and matching the intensity of controls and services to risk levels has been found to improve

the effectiveness of correctional interventions (Andrews and Bonta, 2010; Dowden and

Andrews, 1999a, 1999b; Landenberger and Lipsey, 2005; Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2005;

Lowenkamp, Latessa, and Holsinger, 2006).

1. In this article, the term “risk” is used to refer to public safety risk and risk for recidivism (see Gottfredson

and Moriarty, 2006). Although the term “risk” can refer to both static and dynamic factors, in this article,

static risk and dynamic risk factors (needs) are distinguished as separate constructs. The term “needs” is

used to refer to dynamic risk factors throughout the article.

72 Criminology & Public Policy

Taxman and Caudy

Despite the demonstrated utility of static risk for prediction and classification, the

concept of static risk cannot tell us what specific factors should be targeted during correc-

tional interventions or how those factors can best be addressed. Risk alone, even when it

includes both static and dynamic indicators, often lacks the precision to inform treatment

targets or specific program content.2Accordingly,when agencies rely solely on static risk to

inform offender management decisions, they are greatly oversimplifying the complexity of

the criminal justice client population and the factors that affect client outcomes. Effectively

informing treatment placements requires assessment and consideration of dynamic risk fac-

tors (Bonta, 2002; Taxman,2006). The need principle of the risk–need–responsivity (RNR)

framework stresses the importance of targeting dynamic risk factors (needs) that are both

malleable and directly related to recidivism outcomes during correctional programming.

The factors that meet these two criteria are referred to as criminogenic needs.

Although Andrews and Bonta’s (2010) hierarchy of dynamic needs provides consider-

able guidance for practitioners, the complexity (i.e., number of, interactions between, and

differential salience) of offender needs has emerged as a significant barrier to the application

of the risk–need principles in practice. This complexity might also play a role in limiting the

effectiveness of rehabilitation correctional programming. Essentially,research is needed that

aids in clarifying this complexity to facilitate knowledge translation and the development

of more effective interventions. The call for a better understanding of the comorbidity of

criminogenic needs is consistent with the observation that “scientific progress in the field of

corrections depends on reducing the infinite variety of problems through conceptualization”

(Warren, 1971: 239).

Despite consistent empirical support for the importance of risk, surprisingly little

research has been published on how different criminogenic needs cluster together. The

current study bridges a gap in the empirical literature using latent class analysis (LCA) to

identify profiles of dynamic needs in a large sample of community-supervised offenders.

The study explores the interplay between risk classification and the prevalence of various

criminogenic needs. Through this empirical classification, several practical implications and

intriguing avenues for future research emerge.

Study Background

Risk and Need Factors

In the RNR framework, Andrews and his colleagues (Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge, 1990;

Andrews and Bonta, 2010) specified eight dynamic risk factors that are associated with

criminal behavior. These eight factors, labeled as the “central eight” criminogenic needs,

2. Many third- and fourth-generation risk and need assessment instruments include indicators of dynamic

risk factors that make them useful for informing case management and treatment placement decisions.

However, when static and dynamic factors are combined to create a global risk score, the utility of these

assessments (particularly needs assessment) for informing programming is limited.

Volume 14 rIssue 1 73