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 metaanalyses, 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.

Research Summary: This study analyzed data on 3,237 offenders placed in 1 of 38 community‐based residential programs as part of their parole or other post‐release control. Offenders terminated from these programs were matched to, and compared with, a group of offenders (N = 3,237) under parole or other post‐release control who were not placed in residential programming. Data on program characteristics and treatment integrity were obtained through staff surveys and interviews with program directors. This information on program characteristics was then related to the treatment effects associated with each program. Policy Implications: Significant and substantial relationships between program characteristics and program effectiveness were noted. This research provides information that is relevant to the development of correctional programs, and it can be used by funding agencies when awarding contracts for services.

Research Summary Over the past two decades, researchers have been increasingly interested in measuring the risk of offender recidivism as a means of advancing public safety and of directing treatment interventions. In this context, one instrument widely used in assessing offenders is the Level of Service Inventory‐Revised (LSI‐R). Recently, however, the LSI‐R has been criticized for being a male‐specific assessment instrument that is a weak predictor of criminal behavior in females. Through the use of meta‐analytic techniques, we assessed this assertion. A total of 27 effect sizes yielded an average r value of .35 ([confidence interval] CI = .34 to .36) for the relationship of the LSI‐R with recidivism for female offenders (N= 14,737). When available, we also made within‐sample comparisons based on gender. These comparisons produced effect sizes for males and females that were statistically similar. Policy Implications These results are consistent with those generated in previous research on the LSI‐R. They call into question prevailing critiques that the LSI‐R has predictive validity for male but not for female offenders. At this stage, it seems that corrections officials should be advised that the LSI‐R remains an important instrument for assessing all offenders as a prelude to the delivery of treatment services, especially those based on the principles of effective intervention. Critics should be encouraged, however, to construct and validate through research additional gender‐specific instruments that revise, if not rival, the LSI‐R.

Research Summary: This study analyzed data on 7,306 offenders placed in 1 of 53 community‐based residential programs as part of their parole, post‐release control, or probation. Offenders who successfully completed residential programming were compared with a group of offenders (n = 5801) under parole/post‐release control who were not placed in residential programming. Analyses of program effectiveness were conducted, controlling for risk and a risk‐by‐group (treatment versus comparison) interaction term. Policy Implications: Significant and substantial differences in the effectiveness of programming were found on the basis of various risk levels. This research challenges the referral and acceptance policies and procedures of many states’ departments of corrections, local probation departments and courts, and social service agencies that provide offender services.

No abstract