Validating Responsivity Assessments for Correctional Populations: Evaluating the Association With Program Participation, Dosage, and Completion

• Published date: 01 April 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/08874034241240998
• Author: Grant Duwe,Valerie Clark
• Date: 01 April 2024

https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034241240998

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2024, Vol. 35(2-3) 132 –158

© The Author(s) 2024

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/08874034241240998

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Validating Responsivity

Assessments for Correctional

Populations: Evaluating the

Association With Program

Participation, Dosage,

and Completion

Grant Duwe1 and Valerie Clark1

Abstract

While specific responsivity factors are believed to either inhibit or facilitate

successful involvement in programming, relatively little attention has been given to

the validation of responsivity assessments used for correctional populations. Based

on a sample of nearly 2,100 individuals confined in Minnesota prisons, this study

examines the relationship between a needs and responsivity assessment system and

multiple measures of program participation, dosage, and completion. The responsivity

domains—childhood trauma, mental health, religiosity, motivation and learning style—

were significantly associated with at least one measure of programming. All but two

of the needs domains also had a significant association with programming involvement.

We discuss the implications of the findings for correctional research and practice.

Keywords

responsivity assessment, validation, risk-needs-responsivity model, programming

Over the last several decades, the risk-needs-responsivity (RNR) model has gained

traction as the guiding framework for the delivery of programming to correctional pop-

ulations. The risk principle holds that programming should be calibrated to a person’s

1Minnesota Department of Corrections, St. Paul, USA

Corresponding Author:

Grant Duwe, Research Director, Minnesota Department of Corrections, 1450 Energy Park Drive,

Suite 200, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA.

Email: grant.duwe@state.mn.us

1240998CJPXXX10.1177/08874034241240998Criminal Justice Policy ReviewDuwe and Clark

research-article2024

Duwe and Clark 133

risk of reoffending, with greater dosages reserved for higher-risk individuals. The needs

principle indicates that programming should target a person’s criminogenic needs,

which are dynamic recidivism risk factors that are susceptible to change. The respon-

sivity principle maintains that programming should be tailored to an individual’s learn-

ing style, strengths, and abilities (Andrews et al., 2006; Bonta & Andrews, 2017).

To help determine who, what, and how programming should be delivered, the RNR

model relies on assessments. Some tools have been designed to focus only on predict-

ing a risk-related outcome (e.g., recidivism, prison misconduct, failure to appear, etc.)

or assessing specific domains for criminogenic needs (e.g., substance use, anti-social

thinking, anti-social peers, etc.) or responsivity (e.g., childhood trauma). Other instru-

ments, however, have been created to simultaneously assess for risk, needs, and, less

frequently, responsivity. Even when there has been an attempt to account for respon-

sivity within an RNR assessment instrument, it has seldom been more than a checklist

of items such as language, gender, and culture.

Irrespective of whether an instrument was created to assess a specific domain or all

three areas of the RNR model, it is imperative to evaluate its validity. Perhaps because

responsivity has attracted the least amount of attention among the three principles

within the RNR model, validations of responsivity assessments have, to our knowl-

edge, been virtually nonexistent. Instead, given that existing validations of assessment

tools for correctional populations have focused mostly on their ability to predict recid-

ivism, prior validation research has been confined to risk and, to a lesser extent, need

assessments.

When evaluating the predictive validity of instruments that have been designed

to assess recidivism risk, observed recidivism is the measure that should be used.

Moreover, a criminogenic need is, by definition, expected to not only have a signifi-

cant, direct impact on reoffending, but interventions that successfully target this need

will lower recidivism. For instance, substance use is a criminogenic need with a sig-

nificant, direct impact on recidivism (Gendreau et al., 1996), and substance use dis-

order (SUD) treatment has been shown to reduce reoffending (Mitchell et al., 2007).

On the contrary, when needs are not effectively addressed, the likelihood of recidivism

increases (Krushas et al., 2024). Thus, as with risk assessments, recidivism is the out-

come measure that should be used to determine the predictive validity of instruments

designed to assess criminogenic needs.

Specific responsivity factors, on the contrary, are not expected to have a significant,

direct impact on criminal behavior. While general responsivity refers to types of pro-

gramming that are most effective in reducing recidivism, such as cognitive-behavioral

interventions, specific responsivity includes individual barriers that may limit the like-

lihood of program participation and successful completion (Bonta & Andrews, 2017).

Examples of specific responsivity factors include motivation, anxiety, learning style,

mental health, religiosity, language, gender, and culture (Cullen, 2002; Duwe &

Johnson, 2023; McCormick et al., 2017; Mowen et al., 2018; Pinals et al., 2021; Sachs

& Miller, 2018).

The association between specific responsivity factors and recidivism, if it exists,

likely reflects the influence of criminogenic needs. For example, in their discussion of