Research clearly shows us that correctional professionals should target interventions based on level of risk as determined by a validated risk assessment. The felons on my program are overwhelmingly high-risk as determined by their Level of Service/Case Management Inventory LSCMI score. As such, I develop programming using relatively intensive interventions addressing our offenders' most pronounced criminogenic factors (usually antisocial thinking/behavior).
When working with low or medium-risk offenders, however, correctional educators should consider whether or not these offenders should be placed in an intensive program. Placing low-risk offenders in programs designed for high-risk offenders can increase the recidivism rates of low-risk offenders. This seemingly counter-intuitive outcome likely occurs, at least in part, through socialization with high-risk peers. It's important to remember that having a high number of anti-social associates is a known criminogenic risk factor. When we place low-risk offenders in an environment full of high-risk offenders, we are often inadvertently increasing the odds that these low-risk offenders will become recidivists.
So, exactly how should correctional educators develop employment interventions for low-risk offenders? Unfortunately this question does not have a precise answer, because low-risk offenders may sometimes benefit from interventions that include addressing criminogenic factors, though typically these interventions should be much less intensive than programs designed for high-risk offenders. Also, low-risk offenders are often good candidates for "employment placement programs" where vocational specialists provide job readiness training and employment opportunities that do not necessarily address criminogenic factors. When determining which criminogenic factors should be addressed, correctional specialists should rely on the results of an evidence-based risk assessment tool.
The one overriding guideline for low-risk offender programming is that these offenders should not be lumped into programs specifically designed to address the needs of a high-risk population. Since low-risk offenders have fewer characteristics that indicate the potential for recidivism, then correctional programming should appropriately reflect the lower assessed risk. And from an organizational resource standpoint, the time saved by providing lower risk offenders with less intensive interventions can enhance an organization's ability to provide high-risk offenders with more time consuming and resource intensive programming.
When working with low or medium-risk offenders, however, correctional educators should consider whether or not these offenders should be placed in an intensive program. Placing low-risk offenders in programs designed for high-risk offenders can increase the recidivism rates of low-risk offenders. This seemingly counter-intuitive outcome likely occurs, at least in part, through socialization with high-risk peers. It's important to remember that having a high number of anti-social associates is a known criminogenic risk factor. When we place low-risk offenders in an environment full of high-risk offenders, we are often inadvertently increasing the odds that these low-risk offenders will become recidivists.
So, exactly how should correctional educators develop employment interventions for low-risk offenders? Unfortunately this question does not have a precise answer, because low-risk offenders may sometimes benefit from interventions that include addressing criminogenic factors, though typically these interventions should be much less intensive than programs designed for high-risk offenders. Also, low-risk offenders are often good candidates for "employment placement programs" where vocational specialists provide job readiness training and employment opportunities that do not necessarily address criminogenic factors. When determining which criminogenic factors should be addressed, correctional specialists should rely on the results of an evidence-based risk assessment tool.
The one overriding guideline for low-risk offender programming is that these offenders should not be lumped into programs specifically designed to address the needs of a high-risk population. Since low-risk offenders have fewer characteristics that indicate the potential for recidivism, then correctional programming should appropriately reflect the lower assessed risk. And from an organizational resource standpoint, the time saved by providing lower risk offenders with less intensive interventions can enhance an organization's ability to provide high-risk offenders with more time consuming and resource intensive programming.