The present study evaluated a training program for probation officers based on the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation. A total of 80 officers were randomly assigned to either training or a no training condition. The probation officers then recruited 143 probationers and audiotaped their sessions at the beginning of supervision, 3 months later, and 6 months later. The audiotapes were coded with respect to the officers’ adherence to the RNR model. The experimental probation officers demonstrated significantly better adherence to the RNR principles, with more frequent use of cognitive-behavioral techniques to address the procriminal attitudes of their clients. Finally, the analysis of recidivism rates favored the clients of the trained officers. The findings suggest that training in the evidence-based principles of the RNR model can have an important impact on the behavior of probation officers and their clients.

Research has established eight theoretically based central risk/need factors predictive of recidivism; however, there is little research examining the applicability of these risk factors to Aboriginal offenders. A meta-analysis was undertaken to examine whether (1) criminal history, (2) pro-criminal attitudes, (3) pro-criminal associates, (4) antisocial personality pattern, (5) employment/education, (6) family/marital, (7) substance abuse, and (8) leisure/recreation are applicable to Aboriginal offenders and whether these factors predict recidivism equally well for this group as they do for non-Aboriginal offenders. Thirty-two reports/articles and 12 data sets were reviewed which yielded 49 independent samples producing 1,908 effect sizes. Using both random and fixed effects analyses, results indicated that all of the central eight risk/need factors were predictive of general and violent recidivism for Aboriginal offenders; however, some factors predicted significantly better for non-Aboriginal offenders. This review also examined other factors (e.g., history of victimization and emotional factors) and there was an attempt to evaluate Aboriginal-specific risk factors (e.g., cultural identity) but no empirical studies existed on the latter. Limitations and future directions are discussed, but overall, the results support the position that the central eight risk factors are valid predictors of recidivism for Aboriginal offenders.

The application of common risk assessment measures, such as the Level of Service Inventories (LSI), to Aboriginal offenders has been a criticized practice. The belief that Aboriginal offenders have distinct needs has informed the argument that existing risk-need assessments cannot adequately capture their risk. To explore this, the present meta-analysis reviewed 16 samples to test the extent to which LSI scores predict recidivism for Aboriginal compared with non-Aboriginal offenders. In addition, one large sample was used to examine the similarities in recidivism rates per LSI score for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders. Results indicated that the LSI predicts recidivism for Aboriginal offenders; however, for five of eight subscales, it predicts with less accuracy compared with non-Aboriginal offenders. In addition, the LSI underclassifies low-scoring Aboriginal offenders, but accurately estimates recidivism rates for higher scoring offenders. Implications for research into culturally-specific risk factors and the application of current risk factors to Aboriginal offenders are explored.

No abstract

The overrepresentation of Indigenous offenders in the Canadian criminal justice system highlights the need for research on the applicability of risk assessment for this group. Given that most decisions throughout an offender’s progression through the criminal justice system are guided by the outcomes of risk assessment, it is essential that risk assessments be structured, objective, reliable, and transparent. Furthermore, it is imperative that these risk assessments be empirically validated to defend their use with a diverse offender population. Meta-analyses and large-sample studies have demonstrated that the major risk factors and commonly used risk assessment scales predict recidivism for Indigenous offenders, but the predictive accuracy is weaker for Indigenous compared with non-Indigenous offenders. Given the consequences of risk assessment for offenders and matters of public safety, the reasons for these differences remain an important topic of research. Despite the evidence gaps, the available research supports the use of empirically validated structured risk assessments with offenders of Indigenous heritage, until there is more research done to better understand differences in predictive accuracy.