Risk–Needs Assessment and Allocation to Offender Programmes

Hollin, Clive R.

doi:10.1002/9780470713464.ch12

Cited by 21 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In practice, needs–risk assessment is used within the criminal justice system for a range of tasks: for example, Andrews and Bonta (1995) state that the LSI‐R identifies treatment targets for intervention, assists in monitoring risk for offenders under probation supervision, can be used for making decisions regarding placement into half‐way houses and for deciding appropriate security level classification within institutions, and informs the assessment of likelihood of recidivism. Further, the association between level of risk, delivery of appropriate services, and treatment outcome in terms of reduced reoffending has become axiomatic within the literature (Hollin, 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Criminogenic need and women offenders: A critique of the literature

Hollin¹,

Palmer²

2006

Legal Criminol Psychol

Self Cite

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. This paper considers the criminogenic needs of women offenders, raising the question of whether there may be women‐specific criminogenic needs. Arguments. The risk‐needs model of offending has become increasingly influential in both research and practice. Simply, the risk–needs model holds that some aspects of an individual's functioning are risk factors for offending. The distinction can be drawn between static and dynamic risk factors: the former are historical, the latter reflect current functioning and are amenable to change. These dynamic attributes linked to offending – such as financial status, emotional problems, and substance use – are referred to as criminogenic needs. Needs assessment instruments, such as the Level of Service Inventory‐Revised (LSI‐R; Andrews & Bonta, 1995) have been developed to assess criminogenic need and predict risk of offending. Much of the research informing the risk–needs model has been carried out with male offenders, leading to questions about the criminogenic needs of women offenders and whether there may be women‐specific criminogenic needs. Conclusion. An overview of typical criminogenic needs, as assessed by the LSI‐R, suggests that there are probably common needs for male and female offenders. A common need does not imply that aetiology or level of importance of that need is the same for men and women, while some events, such as physical and sexual abuse, are arguably criminogenic needs for women. The implications for practice and research of understanding more about women‐specific criminogenic needs are considered.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Criminogenic need and women offenders: A critique of the literature

Hollin¹,

Palmer²

2006

Legal Criminol Psychol

Self Cite

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As Hollin (2002) notes, research addressing differences in risks and needs amongst different offending populations is crucial as we move into a further, more sophisticated, phase of what works investigations. To date, LSI‐R subcomponent analysis has only been carried out by Raynor et al (2000) and Hollin, Palmer, & Clark (2003) in relation to establishing the predictive reliability and validity of the instrument, in relation to adult probationers and prisoners, respectively, and by ourselves in the current evaluation context. It also underlines the LSI‐R's heightened versatility in comparison to other complex risk predictors, such as the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (Hare, 1991).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treating offending children: What works?

Nee

Ellis

2005

Legal Criminol Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. There is little evidence on the effectiveness of interventions with offending children and juveniles, either in Europe or North America. We present the evaluation findings of an innovative intervention and relate these to the existing evidence base for young offenders and to the more extensive literature on older offenders. Methods. Using an established risk predictor, The Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI‐R; Andrews & Bonta, 1995), we measured the criminogenic risks and needs of the intervention group and a non‐intervention group of child and juvenile offenders at 6‐monthly intervals. Local police charges data were also collected for both groups as an indicator of offending behaviour. Results. Over the first 30 months of the project, a statistically significant drop was seen in the LSI‐R scores of the project participants, with favourable effect sizes. Effect sizes improved markedly with longer‐term intervention. There were also strong indications that the level of offending behaviour had decreased during the intervention. The comparison group showed no change in risks, needs or offending rate. Conclusions. We suggest this study provides an important contribution to the evidence base of what works with child and juvenile offenders and we suggest that an increased focus on understanding effective intervention with very young offenders is required.

show abstract

“…Réduit à une explication simple, cela signifie que l'on doit offrir davantage de services et/ou programmes aux délinquants les plus à risque et à l'inverse, en offrir moins ou de moindre intensité aux délinquants dont le risque n'est pas élevé. L'adéquation entre le niveau de risque présenté par le délinquant et l'intensité du programme offert repose sur une évaluation rigoureuse des caractéristiques individuelles du délinquant, lesquelles augmentent ou diminuent la probabilité d'une récidive (Hollin, 2002). Ces facteurs de risque sont soit statiques, en ce sens qu'ils réfèrent à des aspects du passé du délinquant que l'on ne peut modifier à l'aide d'interventions (antécédents criminels, âge, etc.)…”

Section: Les Meilleures Pratiques Visant La Diminution De La Récidiveunclassified

Ouvrir les portes de la prison : plaidoyer en faveur de la psychoéducation en milieu carcéral

Arseneault

Plourde

Marcotte

et al. 2017

psyedu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cet article vise à situer et à promouvoir la place de l’intervention psychoéducative auprès des personnes adultes délinquantes et criminalisées prises en charge par les systèmes correctionnels québécois et canadien. Malgré la diversité des milieux dans lesquels oeuvrent les psychoéducateurs, leur présence au sein des milieux carcéraux fait encore figure d’exception. Les données les plus récentes obtenues montrent qu’uniquement 0,36 % des psychoéducateurs membres de l’Ordre des psychoéducateurs et psychoéducatrices du Québec oeuvrent dans ces milieux. Cet article présente d’abord un examen des particularités du milieu carcéral, les deux principales philosophies d’intervention correctionnelle ainsi que certaines notions historiques essentielles à la compréhension des pratiques en milieu carcéral. Les meilleures pratiques visant la réduction de la récidive, objectif ultime de toutes interventions correctionnelles, seront ensuite dépeintes. L’intervention en milieu carcéral comportant plusieurs défis, notamment en raison du contexte contraignant d’intervention, certains enjeux qui guettent les psychoéducateurs désirant oeuvrer auprès de cette clientèle seront présentés. Tout au long de l’article, les liens entre l’intervention correctionnelle et l’intervention psychoéducative ayant pu être tracés par l’examen des milieux carcéraux sont présentés sous forme de sept différentes pièces à conviction. Ces pièces à conviction représentent des arguments qui soutiennent le plaidoyer, notre plaidoyer : notre souhait que les psychoéducateurs innovent pour que la psychoéducation soit présente dans les milieux carcéraux et ainsi que ces milieux bénéficient de l’expertise psychoéducative.

show abstract

Risk–Needs Assessment and Allocation to Offender Programmes

Cited by 21 publications

References 76 publications

Criminogenic need and women offenders: A critique of the literature

Criminogenic need and women offenders: A critique of the literature

Treating offending children: What works?

Ouvrir les portes de la prison : plaidoyer en faveur de la psychoéducation en milieu carcéral

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About