Prior literature highlights the effectiveness of the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) risk principle when providing community supervision and treatment to general justice-involved individuals and special populations such as individuals convicted of a sexual offense. Individuals deemed high-risk, per risk assessment, should receive the most intensive levels of community supervision and treatment, while individuals classified as low risk should receive the lowest intensity. Research in support for the risk principle finds adherence decreased recidivism rates and increased probation compliance. The current study assesses the effects of adhering (or not) to the risk principle in supervision levels and treatment dosage on the compliance of individuals on probation for a sexual offense (N = 133). Overall, results support risk principle adherence for individuals, with increasing adherence levels associated with significantly more compliance, and non-adherence resulting in adverse outcomes. Implications for policy and practice in the supervision and treatment of individuals with a sexual offense are discussed.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39.
2.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.
3.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.HogeR. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 19–52.
4.
BabcockJ. C.GreenC. E.RobieC. (2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(8), 1023–1053.
5.
BontaJ.BourgonG.RuggeT.ScottT.-L.YessineA.GutierrezL.LiJ. (2011). An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1127–1148.
6.
BontaJ.Wallace-CaprettaS.RooneyJ. (2000). A quasi-experimental evaluation of an intensive rehabilitation supervision program. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 27(3), 312–329.
7.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8.
DesmaraisS. L.JohnsonK. L.SinghJ. P. (2016). Performance of recidivism risk assessment instruments in U.S. correctional settings. Psychological Services, 13, 206–222.
9.
DowdenC.AndrewsD. A. (1999a). What works for female offenders: A meta-analytic review. Crime & Delinquency, 45(4), 438–452.
10.
DowdenC.AndrewsD. A. (1999b). What works in young offender treatment: A meta-analysis. In Forum on Corrections Research, (11), 21-24).
11.
DowdenC.AndrewsD. A. (2000). Effective correctional treatment and violent reoffending: A meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42(4), 449–467.
12.
HansonR. K.BourgonG.HelmusL.HodgsonS. (2009). The principles of effective correctional treatment also apply to sexual offenders: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(9), 865–891.
13.
HansonR., K.HelmusL.M.HarrisA. J. R. (2015). Assessing the risk and needs of supervised sexual offenders: A prospective study using STABLE-2007, Static-99, and Static-2002R. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(12), 1205–1224.
14.
JenuwineM. J.SimmonsR.SwiesE. (2003). Community supervision of sex offenders-integrating probation and clinical treatment. Federal Probation, 67, 20.
15.
LandenbergerN. A.LipseyM. W. (2005). The positive effects of cognitive–behavioral programs for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(4), 451–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-005-3541-7
16.
LatessaE. J.LemkeR.MakariosM.SmithP.LowenkampC. T. (2011). The creation and validation of the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS). Criminal Justice Review, 12, 38–43.
17.
LovinsB.LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J. (2009). Applying the risk principle to sex offenders: Can treatment make some sex offenders worse?The Prison Journal, 89(3), 344–357.
18.
LovinsB. K.LatessaE. J.MayT.LuxJ. (2018). Validating the Ohio risk assessment system community supervision tool with a diverse sample from Texas. Corrections: Policy, Practice and Research, 3, 186–202.
19.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J. (2002). Evaluation of Ohio’s community based correctional facilities and halfway house programs [Technical report]. University of Cincinnati.
20.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J. (2004). Understanding the risk principle: How and why correctional interventions can harm low-risk offenders. Topics in Community Corrections, 2004, 3–8.
21.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J.HolsingerA. M. (2006a). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs?Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128705281747
22.
LowenkampC. T.PalerJ.SmithP.LatessaE. J. (2006b). Adhering to the risk and need principles: Does it matter for supervision-based programs. Federal Probation, 70, 3–8.
23.
McGrathR. J.CummingG.HoltJ. (2002). Collaboration among sex offender treatment providers and probation and parole officers: The beliefs and behaviors of treatment providers. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14(1), 49–65.
24.
MillerH. A.TomanE. L.PedersonK. M. (2024). Examining the utility of the Texas Risk Assessment System (TRAS) to predict community supervision compliance and recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241240991
25.
MonicoL. B.MitchellS. G.WelshW.LinkN.HamiltonL.Malvini ReddenS.SchwartzR. P.FriedmannP. D. (2016). Developing effective interorganizational relationships between community corrections and community treatment providers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55(7), 484–501.
26.
NewstromN. P.MinerM.HoeferC.HansonR. K.RobinsonB. B. E. (2019). Sex offender supervision: Communication, training, and mutual respect are necessary for effective collaboration between probation officers and therapists. Sexual Abuse, 31(5), 607–631.
27.
OlverM. E.MarshallL. E.MarshallW. L.NicholaichukT. P. (2020). A long-term outcome assessment of the effects on subsequent reoffense rates of a prison-based CBT/RNR sex offender treatment program with strength-based elements. Sexual Abuse, 32(2), 127–153.
28.
PedersonK. M.MillerH. A. (2022). Application of the risk principle in the supervision and treatment of individuals who have sexually offended: Does ‘over-supervision’ matter?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(3), 350–370.
29.
PickettJ. T.ManciniC.MearsD. P. (2013). Vulnerable victims, monstrous offenders, and unmanageable risk: Explaining public opinion on the social control of sex crime. Criminology, 51(3), 729–759.
30.
SampleL. L.BrayT. M. (2003). Are sex offenders dangerous?Criminology & Public Policy, 3(1), 59–82.
31.
ShieldsR. T.CochranJ. C. (2020). The gender gap in sex offender punishment. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 36(1), 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-019-09416-x
32.
SmidW. J.KamphuisJ. H.WeverE. C.Van BeekD. J. (2016). A quasi-experimental evaluation of high-intensity inpatient sex offender treatment in the Netherlands. Sexual Abuse, 28(5), 469–485.
33.
SociaK. M.RydbergJ.DumC. P. (2021). Punitive attitudes toward individuals convicted of sex offenses: A vignette study. Justice Quarterly, 38(6), 1262–1289.
34.
Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (2015). The texas risk assessment system: A new direction in supervision planning. Agency News: Criminal Justice Connections, 22(3), 1–2.
35.
ViglioneJ. (2019). The risk-need-responsivity model: How do probation officers implement the principles of effective intervention?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(5), 655–673.
36.
WilsonR. J.StewartL.StirpeT.BarrettM.CrippsJ. E. (2000). Community-based sex offender management: Combining parole supervision and treatment to reduce recidivism. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42(2), 177–188.
37.
WormithJ. S.HoggS.GuzzoL. (2012). The predictive validity of a general risk/needs assessment inventory on sexual offender recidivism and an exploration of the professional override. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(12), 1511–1538.
