Over the recent past there have been several meta-analyses and primary studies that support the importance of the risk principle. Oftentimes these studies, particularly the meta-analyses, are limited in their ability to assess how the actual implementation of the risk principle by correctional agencies affects effectiveness in reducing recidivism. Furthermore, primary studies are typically limited to the assessment of one or two programs, which again limits the types of analyses conducted. This study, using data from two independent studies of 97 correctional programs, investigates how adherence to the risk principle by targeting offenders who are higher risk and varying length of stay and services by level of risk affects program effectiveness in reducing recidivism. Overall, this research indicates that for residential and nonresidential programs, adhering to the risk principle has a strong relationship with a program’s ability to reduce recidivism.
Andrews, D. A. (1999). Assessing program elements for risk reduction: The Correctional Programme Assessment Inventory (CPAI). In P. M. Harris (Ed.), Research to results: Effective community corrections. Proceedings of the 1995 and 1996 Conferences of the International Community Corrections Association (ICCA) (pp. 151-170). Lanham, MD: American Correction Association.
2.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
3.
Andrews, D. A., & Dowden, C. (1999). A meta-analytic investigation into effective correctional intervention for female offenders. Forum on Corrections Research, 11, 18-21.
4.
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 8, 369-404.
5.
Bonta, J., Law, M., & Hanson, R. K. (1998). The prediction of criminal and violent recidivism among mentally disordered offenders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 39, 127-144.
6.
Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., & Rooney, J. (2000). A quasi-experimental evaluation of an intensive rehabilitation supervision program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 312-329.
7.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (1999a). What works for female offenders: A meta-analytic review. Crime & Delinquency, 45, 438-452.
8.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (1999b). What works in young offender treatment: A meta-analysis. Forum on Corrections Research, 11, 21-24.
9.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2000). Effective correctional treatment and violent reoffending: A meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42(4), 449-467.
10.
Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective interventions with offenders. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (1994). The Correctional Program Assessment Inventory. St. John, Canada: University of New Brunswick and Carleton University.
12.
Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (1996). Principles of effective correctional programming. Forum on Corrections, 8, 38-41.
13.
Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (2000). Correctional treatment: Accomplishments and realities. In P. Van Voorhis, M. Braswell, & D. Lester (Eds.), Correctional counseling and rehabilitation (4th ed., pp. 271-280). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
14.
Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (1995). Clinical vs. mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Unpublished manuscript.
15.
Hanley, D. (2002). Risk differentiation and intensive supervision: A meaningful union? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati.
16.
Hanson, R. K., & Bussiere, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348-362.
17.
Hoffman, P. B. (1983). Screening for risk: A revised Salient Factor Score (SFS-81). Journal of Criminal Justice, 11, 539-547.
18.
Hoffman, P. B. (1994). Twenty years of operation use of a risk prediction instrument: The United States Parole Commission’s Salient Factor Score. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 477-494.
19.
Hoffman, P. B., & Beck, J. L. (1974). Parole decision-making: A Salient Factor Score. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2, 195-206.
20.
Hoffman, P. B., & Beck, J. L. (1985). Recidivism among released federal prisoners: Salient Factor Score and five year follow-up. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12(4), 501-507.
21.
Hoge, R., Leschied, A., & Andrews, D. A. (1993). An investigation of young offender service in the province of Ontario: A report of the repeat offender project. Toronto, Canada: Ministry of Community and Social Services.
22.
Latessa, E. J. (2005). Unpublished data from 362 CPAI Assessments. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice.
23.
Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. M. (1999). The importance of evaluating correctional programs: Assessing outcome and quality. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2, 22-29.
24.
Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variable of effects. In T. D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L. V. Hedges, R. J. Light, et al. (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook (pp. 83-127). New York: Russell Sage.
25.
Lipsey, M. W. (1999a). Can intervention rehabilitate serious delinquents?Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 564, 142-166.
26.
Lipsey, M. W. (1999b). Can rehabilitative programs reduce the recidivism of juvenile offenders? An inquiry into the effectiveness of practical programs. Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, 6, 611-641.
27.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1998). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis of research. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 313-345). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
Lowenkamp, C. T. (2004). Correctional program integrity and treatment effectiveness: A multi-site, program-level analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati.
30.
Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2002). Evaluation of Ohio’s community based correctional facilities and halfway house programs [Technical report]. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
31.
Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2004). Understanding the risk principle: How and why correctional interventions can harm low-risk offenders [Technical report]. Topics in community corrections, 2004 (pp. 3-8). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
32.
Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2005a). Evaluation of Ohio’s CCA funded programs [Technical report]. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
33.
Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2005b). Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement. Criminology and Public Policy, 4(2), 263-290.
34.
Matthews, B., Jones Hubbard, D., & Latessa, E. J. (2001). Making the next step: Using evaluability assessment to improve correctional programming. The Prison Journal, 81, 454-472.
35.
Palmer, T. (1995). Programmatic and nonprogrammatic aspects of successful intervention: New directions for research. Crime & Delinquency, 41, 100-131.
36.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
37.
Wilson, D. B., Gottfredson, D. C., & Najaka, S. S. (2001). School-based prevention of problem behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17(3), 247-272.
38.
Wilson, S. J., Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (2003). The effects of school-based intervention programs on aggressive and disruptive behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(1), 136-149.
