The Risk Principle in Action: What Have We Learned From 13,676 Offenders and 97 Correctional Programs?

TLDR

Meta‑analyses and primary studies support the risk principle, yet they often cannot assess how its implementation by correctional agencies affects recidivism reduction, and most focus on only one or two programs. This study investigates how adherence to the risk principle—targeting higher‑risk offenders and tailoring length of stay and services—affects program effectiveness in reducing recidivism. Using data from two independent studies of 97 correctional programs, the authors analyze the relationship between risk‑based targeting and recidivism outcomes. The analysis shows that for both residential and nonresidential programs, adherence to the risk principle strongly correlates with reduced recidivism.

Abstract

Over the recent past there have been several meta-analyses and primary studies that support the importance of the risk principle. Oftentimes these studies, particularly the meta-analyses, are limited in their ability to assess how the actual implementation of the risk principle by correctional agencies affects effectiveness in reducing recidivism. Furthermore, primary studies are typically limited to the assessment of one or two programs, which again limits the types of analyses conducted. This study, using data from two independent studies of 97 correctional programs, investigates how adherence to the risk principle by targeting offenders who are higher risk and varying length of stay and services by level of risk affects program effectiveness in reducing recidivism. Overall, this research indicates that for residential and nonresidential programs, adhering to the risk principle has a strong relationship with a program’s ability to reduce recidivism.