Why the risk and needs principles are relevant to correctional programs (even to employment programs)

• Author: Edward Latessa
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00759.x
• Date: 01 November 2011
• Published date: 01 November 2011

POLICY ESSAY

TRANSITIONAL JOBS PROGRAM

Why the risk and needs principles are

relevant to correctional programs

(even to employment programs)

Edward Latessa

University of Cincinnati

It is rare today to read an article or study on correctional intervention programs that

that does not refer to the work of Andrews, Bonta, and Gendreau and their risk,

need, responsivity (RNR) principles (Andrews and Bonta, 1994; Gendreau, 1996).

Through the lens of RNR, scholars and practitioners alike have a framework by which they

can better study and understand criminal conduct and the effectiveness (or lack thereof)

of correctional programs. Indeed, understanding RNR principles provides insight into the

findings from Zweig, Yahner, and Redcross (2011, this issue).

Risk Principle

We will start with the risk principle, or the “who” to target—those offenders who pose a

higher risk of continued criminal conduct. This principle states that our most intensive

correctional treatment and intervention programs should be reserved for higher risk

offenders: those with a higher probability of recidivating. Low-risk offenders have a low

probability of recidivism and, as such, generally have few risk factors. The question is “why

waste our scarce correctional programs on offenders who do not need them?” Furthermore,

placing low-risk offenders in intensive programs also can be counterproductive because

research has clearly demonstrated that when we place lower risk offenders in our more

intensive programs (usually with higher risk offenders), we often increase their failure rates

(and, thus, reduce the overall effectiveness of the program (see, e.g, Bonta, Wallace-Capretta,

and Rooney, 2000; Lowenkamp, Latessa, and Holsinger, 2006).

Direct correspondence to Edward Latessa, University of Cincinnati, School of Criminal Justice, 508 Dyer Hall,

P.O. Box 210389, Cincinnati, OH 45221–0389 (e-mail: edward.latessa@uc.edu).

DOI:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00759.x C2011 American Society of Criminology 973

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 10 rIssue 4