Minimum risk offender or a low risk offender refers to a criminal offender who has lesser tendencies to re-offend and is of minimal risk to the community. In most of the cases they may be first time offenders.
What are medium risk offenders?
Medium Risk Offender. These probationers were assessed to have a medium risk of continued criminal activity. They are required to meet monthly with their probation officer face to face and may report by KIOSK once per quarter.
Is it used only after low-risk offenders demonstrate a good adjustment to supervision?
Probationers are responsible themselves for following conditions. Used after low-risk offenders demonstrate a good adjustment to supervision. Offenders have no contact with a parole/probation officer. They must still meet conditions and commit no further crime.
What is the risk principle in corrections?
The risk principle states that programming should be matched to the risk level of the offenders (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990), and higher-risk offenders should receive more intensive programming for longer periods of time to reduce their risk of re-offending.
Why is the risk principle is important?
well established in many correctional settings. Simply stated, the risk principle indicates that offenders should be provided with supervision and treatment levels that are commensurate with their risk levels.
What are some possible alternatives for low level criminal offenders?
that alternatives to incarceration (probation, restitution, community service, and/or rehabilitative services) are the most appropriate sentence for nonviolent, non-serious offenders and that prison or jail are appropriate only if these alternatives fail.
What is a risk assessment for inmates?
Once someone has been convicted and sentenced for a crime, corrections agencies use risk and need assessment (RNA) tools to identify how likely that person is to commit another crime or violate the rules of prison, jail, or community supervision.
What are the characteristics of a low risk and high risk offender?
A low-risk offender is one with a relatively low probability of reoffending (few risk factors), while a high-risk offender has a high probability (many risk factors). The appli- cation of the concept in corrections is similar to that in most actuarial sciences.
What are the 5 security levels in corrections?
The Federal Prison System The federal prison system's institutions are divided into five categories: minimum, low, medium, high (the most secure), and administrative.
What does high risk offender mean?
High risk offenders are drivers who are convicted of repeated and/or serious drink driving offences. High Risk Offenders are Drivers who: Have been disqualified by order of a court upon conviction for either: driving or attempting to drive with excess alcohol (DR10), or.
Why is low risk important?
Low-Risk Investment Low-risk investing not only means protecting against the chance of any loss, but it also means making sure that none of the potential losses will be devastating.
What crime has the most repeat offenders?
By contrast, people convicted of property crimes were most likely to be rearrested, at 78.3% over five years. This suggests that it is more important to assess risks and needs by looking at longer-term criminal histories than the most recent conviction offense.
What are the 7 criminogenic needs?
Criminogenic needs are defined as “needs seen as causing criminal behavior,”¹ and they fit into eight central categories:History of antisocial behavior.Antisocial cognition.Antisocial associates.Antisocial personality.Family/marital instability.Employment/education.Substance abuse.Leisure and recreation.
What is the most common form of supervising offenders in the community?
Community corrections are sanctions that may be completed after a defendant serves time in prison. The most common form of community supervision is probation. Nearly 3% of the total adult population in the United States is under some form of correctional supervision.
What is the most commonly used measure of successful corrections?
RecidivismRecidivism, the most commonly used definition of correctional success, is one example of a performance measure that many states use.
What is the most common form of probation supervision?
Supervised ProbationSupervised Probation: This is the most common form of probation. If an individual is placed on supervised probation, they have regular check-ins with their probation officer to help keep them on track and report progress to the Court.
Why is offender risk assessment important?
Offenders subject to registration This process allows risk assessment and management to be based on full and accurate information. It also helps to inform identification of new risk. This is particularly important where a recall to prison may be needed.
Research Highlights
Recent research reaffirms the Risk principle but agreement on what defines a low risk offender is required.
Why we did this study
The Risk principle of the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) framework advises that higher intensity service and programs should be reserved for higher risk offenders, while lower risk offenders should be provided with low intensity or minimal services.
What we did
We conducted a literature review of the more recent effective corrections research as well as publications examining the effectiveness of interventions with low risk offenders.
What it means
There is a lack of agreement in the literature on what defines low risk. Although still under development, the Risk Communication Project launched a debate on how general risk can be understood that could help agencies in directing program and supervision strategies.
For more information
Nolan, A., & Stewart, L. (2017). Low risk offenders: What does the research tell us? (Research Report R-383). Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service of Canada.
What is a minimum risk offender?
Minimum risk offender or a low risk offender refers to a criminal offender who has lesser tendencies to re-offend and is of minimal risk to the community. In most of the cases they may be first time offenders.
Why do criminal justice agencies use risk assessment instruments?
Criminal justice agencies routinely use offender risk assessment instruments to differentiate higher risk offenders from lower risk offenders. Information about an offender’s risk to re-offend is used for a number of purposes like enhancing public safety, determining treatment for the offenders etc. A high risk offender is more likely ...
Is a low risk offenders more likely to have a community sentence?
On the other hand, low risk offenders are more likely to have a community sentence. When supervised in the community, they are watched less closely than the high risk offenders. Example of a state statute ( Illinois) defining minimal risk offender for the purpose of DUI Evaluation.
What is risk management in community corrections?
O’Leary and Clear (1984) coined the concept of risk management as part of a resource allocation scheme where higher risk probationers and parolees would receive more intensive supervision, treatment, and controls than lower risk individuals. This concept was pushed even further by research demonstrating that higher risk clients fare better in intensive treatment programs than lower risk individuals (see Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005 ). In essence, a major shift has occurred within community corrections to reallocate social controls, supervision, and treatment resources to those who pose the greatest potential risk to the community. This risk management framework was echoed in the “get tough” movement of the 1970-1990s, which focused on a more punitive, control model of supervision and probation officers (POs; Taxman, 2002, 2008 ).
How does the risk principle work in probation?
Application of the risk principle in practice has resulted in probation organizations making a concerted effort to limit the number of resources expended on low risk offenders, including placing individuals on administrative caseloads where there are minimal requirements. Various technologies have emerged to manage risk, particularly for low-intensity supervision. These technologies are designed to reduce the burden on the PO and allow them to devote more time and resources on higher risk offenders. The New York City Department of Probation pilot-tested an automated kiosk reporting system in the mid-1990s and then expanded to full-scale use in 2003. The kiosk allows low risk offenders to check in on a computer kiosk by answering a few questions. Officers have contact with individuals only when they are noncompliant (e.g., do not check in via kiosk at assigned time). The evaluation of the kiosk technology for low risk individuals found a reduction in 2-year arrest rates for probationers ( Wilson, Naro, & Austin, 2007) and has been replicated in other jurisdictions in Utah ( Ogden & Horrocks, 2000) and Texas ( Belshaw, 2011 ). Barnes and colleagues (2010) and Barnes, Hyatt, Ahlman, and Kent (2012) also conducted a randomized trial to assign parolees to either monthly contacts or face-to-face contacts every 6 months ( Barnes et al., 2010; Barnes et al., 2012 ). This research found no significant differences in reoffending, arrest, and incarceration rates at 12 months ( Barnes et al., 2010) and at 18 months ( Barnes et al., 2012 ).
Why do probation officers refuse to monitor probationers?
Probation staff resisted use of telephone monitoring based on actual and perceived compliance with probation supervision. The most common concern of probation staff regarding moving low risk probationers to the telephone supervision caseload surrounded the amount of fines and restitution payments the individual had. Probation staff refrained from moving probationers to telephone supervision if (a) the probationer was not currently making consistent payments toward fines/restitution or (b) the probationer had any existing fine/restitution payments left. With the exception of a new criminal offense, consistent payment of fines and restitution were the primary concern of POs for those placed on telephone supervision. And, POs raised concern that the risk and need assessment tool used for reassessment did not capture compliance with probation conditions, which limited their perception of the generated risk category. This finding is highlighted below:
What is the risk principle?
Embedded in the risk principle is that the dosage or amount of treatment should increase in accordance with risk level as a tool to effectively reduce recidivism ( Bonta & Andrews, 2007 ). For example, research finds high risk individuals require a greater dose (increased length) of treatment to significantly reduce recidivism compared with lower risk individuals ( Bourgon & Armstrong, 2005 ). Intensive correctional treatment programs are more effective when delivered to higher risk offenders ( Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Andrews, Zinger, et al., 1990; Andrews & Dowden, 1999; Bonta, Wallace-Capretta, & Rooney, 2000; Dowden & Andrews, 1999a, 1999b, 2000; Hanley, 2006; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2002 ). Inappropriate assignment of lower risk individuals to intense programming can actually result in an iatrogenic effect of increased reoffending. A meta-analysis of 80 studies confirmed that when placed in programming, higher risk offenders are 5 times less likely to reoffend compared with lower risk offenders ( Andrews & Bonta, 2010 ). Bonta et al. (2000) found that low risk offenders placed in minimal treatment programming have a recidivism rate of 15% while placing similar offenders in intensive treatment programming increases the recidivism rate to 32%.
What is the role of a standardized risk assessment tool in supervision?
Across the field, it has generally been recognized that supervision agencies must have a standardized risk and need assessment tool to triage offender populations to different risk levels and assign appropriate treatment, treatment intensity, and controls.
What is the RNR framework?
The RNR framework primarily focus es on the therapeutic or rehabilitation aim of corrections. According to scholars of the RNR framework, the purpose of assessing one’s risk level is not to inform control strategies, but rather to identify eligibility for treatment intervention. In practice, many correctional agencies use risk to inform the level of surveillance and controls used, which is more consistent with the compliance management and public safety aims of supervision ( Viglione, Rudes, & Taxman, 2015 ). Increasing controls and supervision intensity for higher risk probationers (such as increased face to face contact between POs and probationers, more drug testing, etc.) has the collateral effect of having no impact on offending rates, but increases technical violations and incarceration rates ( Hyatt & Barnes, 2017; Petersilia & Turner, 1993 ). Thus, more supervision requirements tend to place an individual at even greater risk for programmatic or technical violations ( Petersilia & Turner, 1993; Taxman, 2002, 2012 ).
Background
Method
- A quantitative review of the offender rehabilitation literature was conducted. Studies were included that compared offenders who received treatment to those who did not and that reported the rates of recidivism at follow-up. The review identified 273 tests of the effects of treatment on recidivism. As part of the review, the offenders in the studies were categorized into a low and hi…
Answer
- The review of the literature highlighted three important findings. First, providing treatment to offenders was associated with reduced recidivism. On average, the recidivism rate was 12 percentage points lower for the treated offenders compared to the non-treated offenders. Second, when only risk level is considered, treating high risk offenders resulted in an 11% reducti…
Policy Implications
- Treatment services provided to low risk offenders should be kept to a minimum. Providing intensive treatment to low risk offenders is not only an inefficient use of resources but it may even increase their chances of re-offending. If treatment is provided to low risk offenders then steps should be taken to ensure that the low risk offenders are sep...
Source
- Andrews, D. A. & Bonta, J. (2006). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (4th ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis.
For Further Information
- James Bonta, Ph.D. Corrections Research Public Safety Canada 340 Laurier Avenue West Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0P8 Tel (613) 991-2831 Fax (613) 990-8295 e-mail [email protected] Date modified: 1. 2022-07-26