Using Strength and Risk Factors to Inform Treatment Typologies Over Time for Men on Community Supervision

• Author: Kayla A. Wanamaker,Shelley L. Brown
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211027485
• Published date: 01 March 2023
• Date: 01 March 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211027485

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2023, Vol. 67(4) 327 –351

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X211027485

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Using Strength and Risk

Factors to Inform Treatment

Typologies Over Time for Men

on Community Supervision

Kayla A. Wanamaker1 and Shelley L. Brown1

Abstract

This study examines treatment typologies over time and their relationship to

reoffending outcomes. Latent transition analysis was conducted with 6,675 men on

community supervision in Alberta, Canada using risk and strength factors measured

by the Service Planning Instrument (Orbis Partners, 2003). Three timepoints were

assessed: Time 1 = first assessment within 90 days of start of supervision, Time 2 = 3 to

8 months post initial assessment, and Time 3 = 9 to 14 months post initial assessment.

Five profiles consistently emerged: Low risk/Low strength profile, Aggressive,

complex need/Low strength profile, Moderate risk/Moderate strength profile, Low

risk/High strength profile, and Non-aggressive, complex need/Low strength profile.

At Time 3, a sixth profile emerged labeled Moderate complex need/Low strength.

Profiles characterized as aggressive and those with complex needs had highest rates

of reoffending. Results demonstrate the utility of incorporating strengths, mental

health needs, and adverse childhood experiences in risk assessment protocols.

Keywords

typologies, reoffending, strengths, latent transition analysis, community supervision

Typology research has been prominent in correctional research, whereby individuals

are grouped based on commonly shared characteristics. Often these typologies are

based on the clustering of various risk factors. According to Jones and Harris (1999),

1Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Corresponding Author:

Kayla A. Wanamaker, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive,

Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada.

Email: kaylawanamaker@cmail.carleton.ca

1027485IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X211027485International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyWanamaker and Brown

research-article2021

328 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 67(4)

there are four reasons to classify individuals into correctional typologies: (1) to help

build our understanding of why people engage in criminal activity, (2) to aid in our

approach to treatment and intervention protocols to improve responsivity, (3) to help

guide case management, and (4) to help determine who are more likely to reoffend.

To develop these typologies, studies have used numerous statistical techniques (e.g.,

multidimensional scaling, path analysis, latent class analysis (LCA), cluster analy-

sis), which has increased the variability in the number of identified subtypes. To

date, virtually no typology or strengths-based studies have examined how strengths

may aid in the typological development of adults involved in the criminal justice

system. Further, most typology studies have been cross-sectional in design and do

not consider change over time. The current study will combine risks and strengths to

examine typologies that emerge for men on community supervision and whether

these typologies remain stable over time.

Trajectory-Based Typologies

Trajectory-based typologies examine the development of criminal behavior over

time (e.g., how it increases, decreases, stays the same) and focuses predominately on

adolescence. One of the only trajectory-based studies to include strengths in the

trajectory development was Baglivio et al. (2017). Using a sample of 6,442 youth in

residential facilities assessed with the Residential Positive Achievement Change

Tool (R-PACT; used by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice), trajectories

were developed based on youth’s buffer score progression. The buffer score assesses

risk reduction while also considering strength enhancement (buffer = strength − risk).

Notably, the R-PACT includes several risk and strength domains, including relation-

ships with family and friends, substance use, mental health, attitudes, skills, ability

to control impulses and aggression, etc.). Based on semi-parametric group-based

modeling with four assessments (n = 4,870) and five assessments (n = 1,846), results

indicated that youth in residential facilities progress through different buffering tra-

jectories. Specifically, between six and seven trajectories emerged (depending on

number of assessments). Groups were characterized by initial buffer score and buf-

fer score changes during placement (e.g., Low initial—minimal gains; High ini-

tial—moderate gains; etc.). Trajectories which had the most improvement in buffer

scores over time had the lowest recidivism rates, which illustrates the utility of

incorporating strengths in typological research and risk assessment protocols, espe-

cially when considering changes over time. This study, however, did not character-

ize group membership based on similarities or differences in specific risk/needs and

strengths.

Treatment Typologies

In contrast, treatment typology studies, prevalent among correctional research,

group individuals based on their risks or needs which can help inform effective cor-

rectional treatment interventions and aid in our understanding of how various risk/