Gendreau and Andrews developed the correctional assessment inventory (CPAI) in 1989. The tool was designed to determine the integrity of a correctional program and its ability to meet the established principles. Over the years the CPAI was used to assess different correctional programs where 107 juvenile programs in 17 states were assessed. In the last two decades, there have been renewed interests in correctional research which was led by Gendreau, Andrews, Cullen, Lipsey, and others. Evidence has been generated indicating that many rehabilitation programs have contributed to a significant decline in recidivism. Different characteristics that are mostly associated with effective programs were identified. Efforts from different scholars contributed to the identification of four principles of effective intervention (Andrews et al., 1990; Cullen & Gendreau, 2000; Lipsey, 1999). The purpose of this paper is to examine the four general principles of effective intervention that have become the organizing concept of community corrections. The paper looks at the risk, need, treatment and fidelity principles of the “what works” movement.
The principles of effective offender intervention are important because they offer a rational blueprint for treating the offender. They provide a useful guide in case one had to create a treatment system from the scratch. They further open new avenues for what is felt as effective in the treatment of the offender versus what is supported by scientific evidence. According to the evidence-based practice, individuals are doing their best to promote the safety of the public by preparing the offenders to re-enter the society thus reduce recidivism. The entire process of evidence-based practice is not perfect but there is still much that can be learned on the best way to deliver treatment. The programs that follow the four principles are likely to succeed than those that do not. It is necessary to understand that correctional treatment policy is affected by a combination of forces which is determined by the political system yet it is the duty of the concerned parties to ensure that the objective evidence is part of the mix (Edward & Jennifer, 2003; Nation et al., 2003).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Risk Principle
According to this principle, the offenders are categorized into groups according to the level of risk. Low-risk offenders are those who pose less risk to the community or to themselves. Such offenders need minimal coaching or intervention efforts to fit back into the community. An example of a low-risk offender is one who has been engaged in a quarrel resulting in the violent confrontation. The offender, in this case, might have acted out of frustration and not a passion for them. The attention and resources needed to bring such an individual back are minimal. High-risk offenders are not only risky to themselves but to the community as well. More resources are needed to address their problems. The interventions must be commensurate with their needs. According to this principle, resources should be prioritized according to the risk level of the offender. Individual cases are addressed with all the seriousness deserved (Edward & Jennifer, 2003; Nation et al., 2003).
The Need Principle
According to this principle, the offender is the subject of any consideration for any intervention process. Circumstances at times forces individuals to engage in criminal activities thus the need can be direct r indirect. Offenders lack something that is called a need forcing them to engage in such behaviors. For an individual not to go back to their olden days, they must satisfy the need. If an individual lacks a basic need for education, they might engage in criminal activities and allow that person to go through the correctional process only solves some of the problems yet the underlying issue remains unaddressed. Similarly, environments can influence an individual to commit a crime therefore, it is necessary to address environmental issues if an individual is to be brought back to the society. If an individual is taken back to an environment that encourages the criminal activities, they are likely to revert to the same behavior. The principle thus tries to establish a long-lasting solution by ensuring that an offender gains from an intervention. It tries to address the problem in its entirety rather than dealing with it partially by addressing the needs of the offender (Edward & Jennifer, 2003; Harland, 1996 ).
The Treatment Principle
It emphasizes the need to look at some of the most effective treatment strategies. It gives much focus to the high-risk offender. A treatment program allows the offender to undergo a series of treatments to be accepted back in the community. Issues that need to be considered include the type, interval, and length of treatment. The treatment will depend on the severity of the problem. Depending on the risk level, an offender can be exposed to treatment that discourages them from committing the offense in future. The treatment needs to be intense and elongated at times if need be to provide adequate time for the offender to adjust and be ready to join the community. The treatment should be based on the reasons why the offender commits a crime (Guevara, 2009).
Fidelity Principle
The program needs to be run by individuals who adhere to the rules of law and have high integrity. It is necessary to understand why offenders need help and the role that the program will play in solving some of the issues bedeviling them. The service provider should be responsible for all activities while ensuring that their integrity is not compromised. The principles allow all offenders to access similar services without having to compromise the service provider through bribes or other handouts (Edward & Jennifer, 2003).
The four principles offer an effective way in which the offenders can gain help where their needs are addressed and they are able to join the community. They also ensure that the service providers are effective in their work and take care of the offenders in a humanly way. Even though the four principles deal with the programs and services, they help to reduce or eliminate the vices affecting the offenders allowing them to be productive people who are accepted by the society. They offer a guide for the service providers that can be used to addresses the challenges faced by the offenders.
References
Andrews, D., Zinger, I., Hoge, R., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. (1990). Does Correctional Treatment Work? A clinically Relevant And Psychologically Informed Meta-Analysis *. Criminology , 28 (3), 369-404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1990.tb01330.x
Cullen, F.T. & Gendreau, P., (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects in Criminal justice 2000: Volume 3 – Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system, ed. J. Horney, 109-175. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Edward, J. & Jennifer, A. (2004). Applying the principles of effective intervention to juvenile correctional programs .
Guevara, M. (2009). Implementing Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Community Corrections, 2 Nd Edition.
Harland, A. (1996). Choosing correctional options that work . Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K., Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane, E., & Davino, K. (2003). What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs. American Psychologist , 58 (6-7), 449-456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.58.6-7.449
The Justice Research Center. (2016). What Works Principles . Retrieved from http://thejrc.com/wwi-principles.asp
