Recent meta-analyses have documented considerable evidence demonstrating that correctional treatment programs are indeed effective for reducing recidivism in offender populations. The effect of client risk, an issue that has received extensive coverage in the extant literature from an assessment perspective, has been relatively ignored in these efforts. The present study marks the first exhaustive meta-analytic investigation of the risk principle and its effects on correctional treatment program effectiveness. The results reveal moderate support for its utility, although the magnitude of the findings are affected by the reporting practices used in the primary studies. Finally, the evidence supporting the risk principle is much stronger for female offenders and young offenders and within programs that are deemed appropriate according to the principles of need and responsivity. It should be noted that justice interventions that did not include elements of human service (e.g., increased sanctions) yielded negative results regardless of level of client risk.
Andrews, D. A. (1982). The Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI): The first follow-up. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.
2.
Andrews, D. A. (1989). Recidivism is predictable and can be influenced: Using risk assessments to reduce recidivism. Forum on Corrections Research, 1(2), 11-18.
3.
Andrews, D. A. (1996, November). Behavioral, cognitive behavioral and social learning contributions to criminological theory. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology annual meeting, Chicago.
4.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
5.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2002). The psychology of criminal conduct (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
6.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
7.
Andrews, D. A., & Dowden, C. (2005). What works in correctional treatment: Does age matter? Manuscript submitted for publication.
8.
Andrews, D. A., Dowden, C., & Gendreau, P. (1999). Clinically relevant and psychologically informed approaches to reducing criminal recidivism: A meta-analytic study of human service, risk, need, responsivity and other concerns in justice contexts. Unpublished manuscript.
9.
Andrews, D. A., & Wormith, J. S. (1989). Personality and crime: Knowledge destruction and construction in criminology. Justice Quarterly, 6, 289-309.
10.
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, 28, 369-404.
11.
Baird, S. C., Heinz, R. H., & Bemus, B. J. (1979). Project report #14: A two-year follow-up. Madison, WI: Department of Health and Social Services.
12.
Clements, C. B. (1996). Offender classification: Two decades of progress. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 121-143.
13.
Dowden, C. (1998). A meta-analytic examination of the risk, need and responsivity principles and their importance within the rehabilitation debate. Unpublished master’s thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
14.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (1999a). What works for female offenders: A meta-analytic review. Crime and Delinquency, 45, 438-452.
15.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (1999b). What works in young offender treatment: A meta-analysis. Forum on Corrections Research, 11(2), 21-24.
16.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2000). Effective correctional treatment and violent recidivism: A meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42, 449-476.
17.
Dowden, C., & Brown, S. L. (2002). The role of substance abuse factors in predicting recidivism: A meta-analysis. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 8, 1-22.
18.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., Cullen, F. T., & Andrews, D. A. (2000). The effects of community sanctions and incarceration on recidivism. In L. L. Motiuk& R. C. Serin (Eds.), Compendium2000on effective correctional programming (pp. 18-21). Ottawa: Correctional Services Canada.
19.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult recidivism: What works!Criminology, 34, 575-607.
20.
Gordon, A., & Nicholaichuk, T. P. (1996). Applying the risk principle to sex offender treatment. Forum on Corrections Research, 8, 42-45.
21.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Gottfredson, D. M. (1988). Decision making in criminal justice: Toward the rational exercise of discretion. New York: Plenum.
22.
Greenwood, P. W. (1982). Selective incapacitation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
23.
Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficacy of informal(subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 293-323.
24.
Hare, R. D. (1990). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
25.
Hill, J. K., Andrews, D. A., & Hoge, R. D. (1991). Meta-analysis of treatment programs for young of fenders: The effect of clinically relevant treatment on recidivism, with controls introduced for various methodological variables. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 6, 97-109.
26.
Hoffman, P. B. (1983). Screening for risk: A revised Salient Factor Score (SFS81). Journal of Criminal Justice, 11, 539-547.
27.
Hoffman, P. B. (1994). Twenty years of operational use of a risk prediction instrument: The United States Parole Commission’s salient factor score. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 477-494.
28.
Jones, P. R. (1996). Risk prediction in criminal justice. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 33-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
Lipsey, M. W. (1989, November). The effectiveness of interventions for juvenile delinquency: Results from 400 studies. Paper presented at the 41st annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Reno, NV.
30.
Lipsey, M. W. (1995). What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment with juvenile delinquents? In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending: Guidelines from research and practice (pp. 63-78). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
31.
Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. (1998). Predictors of violent or serious delinquency in adolescence and early adulthood. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 86-105). London: Sage.
32.
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). London: Sage.
33.
Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1996). The development of offending. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 12-24.
34.
O’Leary, V., & Clear, T. R. (1984). Directions for community corrections in the 1990s. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
35.
Schneider, A. L., Ervin, L., & Snyder-Joy, Z. (1996). Further exploration of the flight from discretion: The role of risk/needs instruments in probation supervision decisions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 109-121.
36.
Simourd, L., & Andrews, D. A. (1994). Correlates of delinquency: A look at gender differences. Forum on Corrections Research, 6, 26-31.
37.
Whitehead, J. T., & Lab, S. P. (1989). A meta-analysis of juvenile correctional treatment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 276-295.
38.
Zehr, H., & Mika, H. (1998). Fundamental concepts of restorative justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 1, 47-57.
