This is the 7th of a 7 part series on The Risk Principle Simplified.  Subscribe to our blog and get the next series delivered right to your inbox.

Allowing High Risk Offenders to "Fail First"

While the danger of over-intervening with low risk offenders is generally acknowledged and respected, there is a trend toward policy makers ignoring the opposite side of the coin. For a variety of political and financial reasons, high risk offenders are receiving low intensity interventions under a “fail first model”. Instead of matching intensity of the intervention to the assessed risk level, high risk offenders are being provided low intensity interventions with the idea that when they fail, they will be provided a higher level of supervision. This policy has negative consequences for the following stakeholders: Victims, Offenders and The EBP Movement.

This is the 6th of a 7 part series on The Risk Principle Simplified.  Subscribe to our blog and get the series delivered right to your inbox.

What factors contribute to risk?

Just like the insurance industry, the risk model for offenders has very specific factors to consider. These models were developed in the exact same way that life insurance risk levels are determined. The life insurance industry looks at factors that correlate with early death. The criminal risk model looks at factors that correlate with future criminal behavior. Similarly, some of these factors can be changed (“dynamic risk factors” or “needs”) and others are static. Our next white paper, The Need Principle Simplified, will address “The Key 3” and how various offender situational and personal characteristics interact to increase or decrease criminogenic risk.

When High Risk is Too High: The Psychopath

Imagine what you would be capable of if you were completely self-interested and did not experience fear or guilt. While it is tough to even imagine,

This is the 5th of a 7 part series on The Risk Principle Simplified.  Subscribe to our blog and get the series delivered right to your inbox.

Why would it make them worse?

All interventions have side effects. As some unfortunate cancer patients will attest, sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Therefore, it is vital to consider the pros and cons of all interventions. Some of the down sides of residential placement for low risk offenders are as follows:

• “The Social Learning Effect”:  Low risk offenders tend to learn high risk behaviors and attitudes from high risk offenders. In practice, I have observed that high risk offenders tend to be stronger leaders, positive or negative, in group therapy sessions and residential environments. The well-intended idea of using low risk offenders as role models for high risk offenders is not likely to help the high risk clients, AND is likely to make the “role model” higher risk.

• “The Ripple Effect”:  When you place a low risk offender in residential, it has a ripple effect in the rest of their life. You take away their support system (that has, relatively speaking, been prosocial) and replace that social influence with a group of high risk offenders. Similarly, placing an offender in

This is the 3rd of a 7 part series on The Risk Principle Simplified.  Subscribe to our blog and get the series delivered right to your inbox.

Now What?

I have a “risk score.” What does that do for me? There are a variety of reasons why the concept of risk is important. It clearly has important financial and public safety concerns. Incarceration and correctional interventions in general, are expensive in terms of financial and human capital. The research is clear that lower risk offenders are, by definition, not likely to reoffend, even if no intervention is provided.

Source: Andrews, D.A. and Bonta, J.L. (2003). Level of Supervision Inventory-Revised. U. S. Norms Manual Supplement. Multi Health Systems. Toronto.

This is the 2nd of a 7 part series on The Risk Principle Simplified.  Subscribe to our blog and get the series delivered right to your inbox.

Why Does it Need to be Objective?

“Objective” means not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased. Prior to the use of objective measures of risk, subjective assessment was used. Subjective assessment of risk is based on a review of the clients’ history and a verbal interview with the individual about their plans and attitudes. In other words, subjective assessment is based on instinct or “gut” and therefore more reflective of the evaluator’s biases and/or the likeability of, or the effective manipulation by, the offender. Objective assessment accomplishes two things:

• Appropriate Focus: In order to measure the likelihood of criminal behavior, we must focus on the criteria that actually led to crime. Risk assessment is helpful only if you are measuring the presence and/or absence of characteristics that actually correlate with criminal behavior. For example, since research has proven that low self-esteem does not predict crime,