Examining the Interaction Between Level of Risk and Dosage of Treatment

Sperber, Kimberly Gentry; Latessa, Edward J.; Makarios, Matthew D.

doi:10.1177/0093854812451681

Cited by 22 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is does not support the principles of the RNR model, suggesting that higher risk offenders should receive higher intensity treatment for longer durations (Gendreau et al, 1996). However, few studies have examined the effect of treatment duration and risk level on recidivistic outcomes and our findings are similar to those of Sperber et al (2013).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 80%

“…In a related piece Sperber, Latessa, and Makarios (2013) indicated a need for a substantive dosage of treatment to provide anticipated positive effects. Although empirical replications of Risk × Treatment Interactions are needed to confirm principled findings, evaluation research is being extended to concentrate on the characteristics of offenders in which programming can be designed to have its optimal effect with regard to recidivism reduction.…”

Section: Improving Programming Provision Via Rnrmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Work Release as a Transition: Positioning Success Via the Halfway House

Routh

Hamilton

2015

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 80%

Section: Improving Programming Provision Via Rnrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Work Release as a Transition: Positioning Success Via the Halfway House

Routh

Hamilton

2015

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Given the high prevalence of destabilizers in this class, ancillary services might be needed to help foster desistance from offending for these individuals. Even if specific program content is not varied for this group, it might be efficacious to match these clients to more intensive and comprehensive forensic therapy programs (Polaschek, ) with increased dosage (Bourgeon and Armstrong, ; Crites and Taxman, ; Sperber, Latessa, and Makarios, , ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The current study findings highlight the complexity of offender need profiles and the fact that one size cannot fit all when it comes to providing correctional interventions. This study builds on the growing body of literature that advances knowledge beyond the risk principle to consider, for example, the interaction between offender risk and program dosage (Sperber et al., , ; Taxman, Perdoni, and Caudy, ), the sequencing of interventions based of offender risk and readiness to change (Stephenson et al., ), and the tailoring of CBT programming to the risk and needs of the individual offender (Polaschek, ). Continuation of this line of inquiry is essential for maximizing the effectiveness of correctional treatment in practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk Tells Us Who, But Not What or How

Taxman

Caudy

2015

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 probation 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 LCA analyses 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 characterized by a greater probability of criminogenic needs and lifestyle destabilizers were more likely to experience subsequent criminal justice involvement, regardless of risk level. Policy Implications Simplifying the complexity of offender risk and need profiles through empirical classification 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 management decisions by identifying targets for programming that are likely to co‐occur for many offenders. Specifically, programs can be developed to tailor components to specific static risk and need profiles.

show abstract

“…This risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model calls for offender risk to be measured by using actuarial risk‐assessment tools that have been validated and normed (Andrews and Bonta, ). The most intensive programs—generally measured by total length and number of hours—should be reserved for individuals rated as high risk (Sperber, Latessa, and Makarios, ). Criminogenic needs are individual characteristics that increase the risk of offending behaviors (Latessa and Lowenkamp, ).…”

Section: Effective Interventions and Program Fidelitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Importance of Program Integrity

Duwe

Clark

2015

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary We used a quasi‐experimental design to evaluate the effectiveness of Moving On, a gender‐responsive, cognitive‐behavioral program designed for female offenders. Between 2001 and 2013, there were two distinct periods in which Moving On was administered with, and without, fidelity among female Minnesota prisoners. To determine whether program integrity matters, we examined the performance of Moving On across these two periods. By using multiple comparison groups, we found that Moving On significantly reduced two of the four measures of recidivism when it was implemented with fidelity. The program did not have a significant impact on any of the four recidivism measures, however, when it operated without fidelity. Policy Implication The growth of the “what works” literature and the emphasis on evidence‐based practices have helped foster the notion that correctional systems can improve public safety by reducing recidivism. Given that Moving On's success hinged on whether it was delivered with integrity, our results show that correctional practitioners can take an effective intervention and make it ineffective. Providing offenders with evidence‐based interventions that lack therapeutic integrity not only promotes a false sense of effectiveness, but also it squanders the limited supply of programming resources available to correctional agencies. The findings suggest that ensuring program integrity is critical to the efficient use of successful interventions that deliver on the promise of reduced recidivism.

show abstract

Examining the Interaction Between Level of Risk and Dosage of Treatment

Cited by 22 publications

References 0 publications

Work Release as a Transition: Positioning Success Via the Halfway House

Work Release as a Transition: Positioning Success Via the Halfway House

Risk Tells Us Who, But Not What or How

Importance of Program Integrity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About