Numerous studies on the risk principle provide evidence that correctional practitioners should vary treatment by risk by providing more services to higher risk offenders than to lower risk offenders. Until recently, however, few studies have identified how much more treatment is required to impact recidivism for higher risk offenders compared to their lower risk counterparts. This article summarizes the empirical evidence on the risk-dosage relationship, identifies remaining gaps in the literature, and argues for a comprehensive research agenda that focuses on the most effective execution of risk-based dosage in corrections. Findings from current studies are also discussed in terms of policy and practical implications for the field.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ., & HogeR. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19–52.
2.
AndrewsD. A.ZingerI.HogeR. D.BontaJ.GendreauP., & CullenF. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369–404.
3.
AnglinM. D.HserY. I., & GrellaC. E. (1997). Drug addiction and treatment careers among clients in the drug abuse treatment outcome study (DATOS). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 11, 308–323.
4.
BarnoskiR, (2004). Outcome evaluation of Washington State's research-based programs for juvenile offenders (Document No. 04-01-1201). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
5.
BontaJ.BourgonG.RuggeT.ScottT.YessineA. K., & GutierrezL. (2011). An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1127–1148.
6.
BontaJ.RuggeT.ScottT.BourgonG., & YessineA. K. (2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47, 248–270.
7.
BourgonG., & ArmstrongB. (2005). Transferring the principles of effective treatment into a “real world” prison setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 3–25.
8.
D'SilvaK.DugganC., & McCarthyL. (2004). Does treatment really make psychopaths worse: A review of the evidence. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18, 163–177.
9.
DowdenC., & AndrewsD. A. (1999a). What works for female offenders? A meta-analytic review. Crime and Delinquency, 45, 438–452.
10.
DowdenC., & AndrewsD. A. (1999b). What works in young offender treatment: A meta-analysis. 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, 449–467.
12.
DowdenC., & AndrewsD. A. (2003). Does family intervention work for delinquents? Results of a meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 45, 327–342.
13.
EddyD. M. (2005). Evidence-based medicine: A unified approach. Health Affairs, 24, 9–17.
14.
FalzerP. R., & GarmanD. M. (2009). A conditional model of evidence-based decision making. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 15, 1142–1151.
15.
FeelyM., & SimonJ. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30, 449–474.
16.
GrellaC. E., & JoshiV. (1999). Gender differences in drug treatment careers among clients in the national drug abuse treatment study. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 25, 385–406.
17.
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, 865–891.
18.
HserY. I.AnglinM. D.GrellaC.LongshoreD., & PrendergastM. L. (1997). Drug treatment careers: A conceptual framework and existing research findings. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 14, 543–558.
19.
HserY. I.GrellaC. E.ChouC. P., & AnglinM. D. (1998). Relationships between drug treatment careers and outcomes: Findings from the national Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study. Evaluation Review, 22, 496–519.
20.
HueyS. J.HenggelerS. W.BrondinoM. J., & PickrelS. G. (2000). Mechanisms of change in multisystemic therapy: Reducing delinquent behavior through therapist adherence and improved family and peer functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 821–833.
21.
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, 451–476.
22.
LatessaE. J.LovinsL. B., & SmithP. (2010) Follow-up evaluation of Ohio's community based correctional facility and halfway house programs—Outcome study. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati.
23.
LatessaE. J.LovinsL. B.SmithP., & MakariosM. (2010). Follow-up evaluation of Ohio's community based correctional facility and halfway house programs: Program characteristics supplemental report. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati.
24.
LipseyM. (1999). Can intervention rehabilitate serious delinquents?The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 564, 142–166.
25.
LipseyM. (2009). Primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims & Offenders, 2(4), 124–147.
26.
LipseyM. W.LandenbergerN. L., & WilsonS. J. (2007). Effects of cognitive behavioral programs for offenders. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6, 1–27. doi: 10.4073/csr.2007.6
27.
ListwanS. J.PiqueroN. L., & Van VoorhisP. (2010). Recidivism among a white-collar sample: Does personality matter?Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43, 156–174.
28.
ListwanS. J.Van VoorhisP., & RitcheyP. N. (2007). Personality, criminal behavior, and risk assessment: Implications for theory and practice. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 60–75.
29.
LoughranT. A.MulveyE. P.SchubertC. A.FaganJ.PiqueroA. R., & LosoyaS. H. (2009). Estimating a dose-response relationship between length of stay and future recidivism in serious juvenile offenders. Criminology, 47(3), 699–740.
30.
LovinsB.LowenkampC. T., & LatessaE. J. (2009). Applying the risk principle to sex offenders: Can treatment make some sex offenders worse?The Prison Journal, 89, 344–357.
31.
LovinsL.LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J., & SmithP. (2007). Application of the risk principle to female offenders. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23, 383–398.
32.
LowenkampC. T., & LatessaE. J. (2002). Evaluation of Ohio's community based correctional facilities and halfway house programs: Final report. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati.
33.
LowenkampC. T., & LatessaE. J. (2004). Understanding the risk principle: How and why correctional interventions can harm low risk cases. In Topics in Community Corrections Annual Issue 2004: Assessment Issues for Managers (pp. 3–8). Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections.
34.
LowenkampC. T., & LatessaE. J. (2005). Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement. Criminology & Public Policy, 4, 262–290.
35.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J., & HolsingerA. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 cases and 97 correctional programs?Crime & Delinquency, 52, 77–93.
36.
LowenkampC. T.MakariosM. D.LatessaE. J.LemkeR. L., & SmithP. (2010). Community corrections facilities for juvenile offenders in Ohio: An examination of treatment integrity and recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 695–708.
37.
LowenkampC. T.PealerJ.SmithP., & LatessaE. J. (2006). Adhering to the risk and need principles: Does it matter for supervision-based programs?Federal Probation, 70, 3–8.
38.
MacKenzieD. L. (2000). Evidence-based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 457–471.
39.
MartinsonR. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–54.
40.
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. (2012). Requirements and minimum licensing standards for halfway houses. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Retrieved December 31, 2012 from http://www.drc.ohio.gov/web/HWH_Information.pdf
41.
PetersiliaJ. (1998). A decade of experimenting with intermediate sanctions: What have we learned?Federal Probation, 2, 3–9.
42.
SchoenwaldS. K.CarterR. E.ChapmanJ. E., & SheidowA. J. (2008). Therapist adherence and organizational effects on change in youth behavior problems one year after multisystemic therapy. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 35, 379–394.
43.
SperberK. G.LatessaE. J., & MakariosM. D. (2013). Examining the interaction between level of risk and dosage of treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 338–348.
44.
Van VoorhisP.SpruanceL. M.ListwanS. J.RitcheyP. N., & SeabrookR. (2004). The Georgia cognitive skills experiment: A replication of reasoning and rehabilitation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 263–281.
45.
WexlerH. K.FalkinG. P., & LiptonD. S. (1990). Outcome evaluation of a prison therapeutic community for substance abuse treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 71–92.
