Identifying Appropriate Programming for Low-Risk Offenders

M uch of the focus of programming evaluation research has been on the impact of recidivism rates for the high-risk offender. With limited funding and resources, it is necessary to direct services to the group that can potentially demonstrate the largest percentage decline in recidivism. Although this is certainly appropriate, there is a need to identify the types and amounts of treatment and programming, if any, that may benefit the lower-risk offender. Specifically, the basis for this decision-making follows the risk principle. More than 15 years ago, Andrews, Bonta and Hoge presented the concept of the risk principle. Since then, there have been multiple studies and metaanalyses that have demonstrated support for the risk principle. Simply put, this principle suggests that an offender’s risk level should dictate the types of services he or she receives, the dosage needed, and the amount of supervision required to reduce the likelihood or risk of recidivism. Ideally, an offender’s risk level should be determined by an actuarial risk and needs assessment that has been validated and normed on the targeted population. In addition, treatment target areas should be identified based on the criminogenic needs that are indicated through an actuarial risk assessment. Programs that implement such practices have begun to recognize that lower-risk offenders have either been referred to or court-ordered to correctional treatment programming for services that may be more appropriately developed for a higher-risk individual. Subsequently, research has indicated that intensive treatment and supervision for low-risk offenders has increased this population’s recidivism rates. Given this negative implication, the following study offers some preliminary findings based on a meta-analysis of the existing research that has examined how programming has impacted the lower-risk offending population, and it identifies which services, if any, would minimize the harm.