Over the past decades, scholars have increasingly focused on studying the efficiency of correctional interventions. “ What works ” is not an intervention or a program but a body of knowledge which is grounded on over 30 years of intensive research conducted by numerous scholars in North America. It is also referred as “ evidence-based practice ” which demonstrates that the recidivism rates can be reduced significantly through well-designed programs that are suitable for applying the principles of effective intervention. Through the review and examination of hundreds of studies, scholars have recognized a set of principles that ought to utilize in correctional programs. These principles of effective intervention comprise of risk, need, fidelity and treatment.
The Risk Principle
The risk principle is the first principle which focuses on “ who” to target. The principle maintains that most of the intensive correctional interventions and treatment programs should be set aside for high-risk offenders. “ Risk ” in this case refers to offenders who have a high likelihood of recidivating whereas the low-risk offenders are individuals who portray pro-social features and have a low probability of recidivating. One way to analyses the distinctions is through consideration of the risk factors ( Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2005) . Some of the risks factors include, a person who has a high chance of continuing with criminal activities, one who reduces his/her criminal actions, one who interacts with people who often get into trouble, acts repulsively and many others.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Evidently the former is likely to continue his/her criminal conducts and hence a great need for intervention is important whereas the latter is less likely to re-offend.
Squandering the limited resources of correctional treatment programs to the low-risk offenders do not necessarily mean it is a wastage o the resources ( Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2005) . Most importantly, studies have clearly indicated that placing low-risk offender in intensive programs often leads to failure rates. Several reasons explain why this occurs such as placing the low-risk offender together to the high-risk offenders may cause an “education” in antisocial conducts for the low-risk offenders.
For instance, if teenagers did not use drugs but unfortunately got into trouble with the law one would not opt to put them in programs or groups that comprise of heavy drug users because they would be at a higher risk of getting influenced in one way or another ( Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2005) . Secondly, placing the low-risk lawbreakers in these programs has a tendency of disrupting their pros-social interactions such as school, family, employment and so forth.
The Need Principle
The need principle is the second principle which emphasizes on the “ what” to target. The need principles maintain that programs should target the criminogenic factors (i.e. crime-producing needs) such as substance abuse, antisocial personality attributes, antisocial peer interactions, anti-social attitudes, lack of skills in problem-solving, values and culture and many other are highly linked with criminal behavior. Programs should, therefore, focus on interventions strategies that are attentive to these factors ( Lowenkamp 2011) . Non-criminogenic factors like physical conditioning, self-esteem, and comprehending one's history and culture is not effective in reducing criminal behaviors because they have not been identified to be highly connected to criminal behaviors.
An example of an initiative that focuses on non-criminogenic factors is military-style boot camps which are offender based. These programs concentrate on non-criminogenic factors like discipline, drill and ceremony, physical conditioning, self-esteem and bonding the offenders. As they tend to concentrate on non-crime producing factors, most researchers have indicated that the boot camps have little influence in the future concerning the criminal behaviors ( Lowenkamp 2011) . Additionally, these boot camps have increased failure rate because they often shape aggressive behaviors and bonding the offenders and they are crucial which and should be avoided within this population.
The Treatment Principle
The treatment principle is the third principle which highlights “ how ” to target the offenders’ needs. The principle indicates that for interventions programs to be effective, they should focus on behavior. The behavioral programs comprise of several critical attributes. First, they focus on present condition and risk factors which are accountable for the behaviors of the offenders ( Lowenkamp et.al, 2006) . For instance, concentrating on past events such as grief and abandonment counseling might be helpful in understanding the offender, but it will unlikely assist in reducing the risk of the offender re-offending. On the other hand assisting a person to change his/her associates or friends might be helpful in assisting him to stay out of trouble. However, that does not mean that addressing past trauma a barrier in dealing with antisocial behavior, but the current behavior is the main target for a change but not the past.
Secondly, interventions programs on behavior are more action oriented than talk oriented. In other words, the offenders do something about the problems they are facing compared to just talking about them ( Lowenkamp et.al, 2006) . These kinds of interventions assist the offenders as they learn new pro-social skills to substitute the antisocial bone which they possess such as cheating, stealing and lying through practice, modeling and reinforcement. Illustrations of behavioral programs include social learning programs which aim at teaching new skills to the offenders so that their behaviors, attitudes are consistently reinforced.
The Fidelity Principle
Finally, the fidelity principle focuses on how programs can effectively integrate the risk, need as well as the responsivity principle. Moreover, the programs should be executed as designed and in agreement with their respective model. These programs comprise of elements of integrity and quality ( Lowenkamp et.al, 2006) . These programs focus on responsivity factors like lack of motivation and other similar barriers that have impacts on a person’s involvement in the program and ensuring that the programs have sensitive staff. Additionally, it is important to have workers who are well trained, keeping an eye on the offenders' whereabouts closely, assisting them with other needs, making sure that the program is designed based on quality assurance procedures and providing a structured aftercare.
These programs feature all promote the effectiveness of the correctional program, but recent studies also indicate that even the evidences-based programs can amplify recidivism if not proficiently delivered. For instance, the implementation of the Functional Family Therapy among the juvenile populations revealed that recidivism decreased by 38%for the treatment group ( Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2005) . Additionally, the proper execution of aggression replacement therapy led to a 24% reduction in recidivism for the participating youths. However, if these programs are not competently implemented and delivered, reports indicate that recidivism was increased by 17%.
In conclusion, there is substantial research indicating the efficacy of correctional interventions in reducing recidivism. The research indicates that utilization of certain programs and interventions policies to various offender populations can aid in reducing recidivism. However without proper implementation of the principles of effective intervention an increase in recidivism is experienced. Programming high-risk offenders should be based on various criminogenic needs rather than focusing on one area solely. There is some clear rationale since most of the high-risk individuals would likely not be restricted to one area of high need; hence, programming should focus on interventions with various need areas. Programs that focus multiple criminogenic needs are referred as multimodal, and they have demonstrated to bring the greatest reduction in offenders with high-risk behaviors as well as recidivism.
References
Latessa, E. J., & Lowenkamp, C. (2005). What works in reducing recidivism? U. St. Thomas LJ , 3 , 521.
Lowenkamp Ph. D, C. (2011). What Works in Reducing Recidivism? University of St. Thomas Law Journal , 3 (3), 521.
Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology & Public Policy , 5 (3), 575-594.
