Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:17 pm
Time: 10:17 pm
Results for low risk offenders
2 results foundAuthor: Nolan, Amanda Title: Low Risk Offenders: What Does the Research Tell Us? Summary: The Risk principle of the effective corrections 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. The purpose of the present paper was to review the current body of knowledge on effective corrections with a focus on the assessment and treatment of low risk offenders. It was anticipated that an up-to-date look at the literature may prove valuable in helping to establish clearer guidelines for the provision of interventions to offenders assessed as low risk. Results of the academic literature review confirmed the utility of the Risk principle, with the majority of studies showing that correctional interventions are more likely to demonstrate a treatment effect if the participants in higher intensity programs are moderate or high risk. Low risk offenders, on the other hand, require lower intensity and, in some cases, no direct service. Nevertheless, the literature falls short with respect to providing a complete understanding of what defines 'low risk' in the correctional context. Risk communication across correctional constituencies and even across offence types is inconsistent - the definition of 'low risk' varies considerably. For example, sex offenders as a group are statistically lower risk (i.e., have lower base rates of reoffending) than acquisitive offenders, yet are frequently assessed as higher risk; and women, even those designated as high risk, generally have lower base rates of reoffending than men at any risk level. Risk designation usually follows the allocation of resources with higher risk offenders being afforded closer supervision and more intensive intervention. Violation of this principle can mean that low risk offenders are allocated to services that are unnecessary and, therefore, not cost effective. A recent development in the field may assist in clarifying who is low risk and the level of service that would be appropriate. The Risk Communication Project involving correctional research experts from the US and Canada (Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2016) has issued a draft document containing preliminary ideas on how to organize thinking around the designation of offenders at five risk levels. At the lowest level this includes descriptions of the offence history and needs level of individuals designated at two levels of low risk as well as guidance on intervention approaches required for these offenders to remain low risk. Using the categories described by the Council, it appears that few offenders within CSC would be classified at the lowest risk category (risk level equivalent to the general public; no criminogenic needs). Most low risk offenders in CSC would fall within the second low risk category, requiring at least low intensity programming and community supervision in order to reduce their risk to non-offender levels. Although still under development, this work, which launches an important debate on how general risk can be understood across constituencies, could help agencies in directing program and supervision strategies related to assessed risk level. Missing at this stage is a further discussion of whether risk assessment should consider the potential degree of harm associated with reoffending in addition to an assessment of risk and need levels. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada, 2017. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: 2017 No. R-383: Accessed October 19, 2017 at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-383-eng.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Canada URL: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-383-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 147736 Keywords: Low Risk OffendersRecidivism Risk Assessment |
Author: MacDonald, Shanna Farrell Title: Reasons for parole waivers, postponements, and withdrawals: Examining indicators for low-risk offenders Summary: One of the Correctional Service of Canada's (CSC) strategic priorities is the safe transition of offenders from the institution to the community. Discretionary release provides offenders with a gradual and structured reintegration process for this transition. In addition, offenders on discretionary release, i.e. parole, are more likely to remain in the community than offenders who are released on statutory release (Public Safety Canada, 2015). For offenders who waive, postpone, or withdraw their parole application, the potential amount of time they have to reintegrate into society prior to the end of their sentence is shortened. This is particularly problematic for offenders deemed a low-risk to reoffend and who could be suitably managed and supported in the community (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Office of the Auditor General, 2015). For this study, all parole reviews scheduled in FY2014-2015 for men and FY2014-2015 and FY2015-2016 for women were extracted. The main focus of this study was to examine parole review outcomes for low-risk offenders, i.e., offenders that were determined to be at a low-risk to reoffend based on actuarial measures. Overall, 8,476 parole reviews were scheduled for lowrisk offenders during the study period, representing 3,663 offenders. Women accounted for 12% of the offenders in this study, 3% of which were Indigenous. Among men, 6% were Indigenous. Of the parole reviews scheduled for low-risk offenders, 37% were waived, postponed, or withdrawn. Variations by type of delay/cancellation, gender, ethnicity and region were evident. Indigenous women and men had higher rates of parole delays and cancellations than nonIndigenous offenders. Rates were highest in the Ontario and Pacific regions. Postponements, however, were more common in the Quebec region. Examination of the reasons provided by offenders for parole delays and cancellations showed that avoid a negative decision, program non-completion, and other were the most common. Additional analyses were conducted to determine if structured indicators (such as demographics, criminogenic factors, offender behaviour, and correctional interventions) collected by CSC supported the reasons provided by offenders. For instance, among offenders citing program noncompletion, almost two-thirds were referred to programming. Among these offenders, many were either still in the program, waitlisted or had recently completed the program in relation to their scheduled review date. Furthermore, waiving, postponing, or withdrawing parole does not appear to negatively impact on the Parole Board of Canada's decisions at subsequent parole reviews. This study builds on prior research examining the reasons that offenders choose to delay or cancel their parole reviews while also exploring the specific characteristics based on the reasons endorsed by offenders. Overall, these results provide CSC with targeted areas for intervention in order to support offenders at low-risk to reoffend reintegrate to the community in a timely and successful manner. Future research areas are also identified. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2017. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: 2017 No. R-396: Accessed February 21, 2018 at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-396-eng.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Canada URL: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-396-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 149193 Keywords: Low Risk OffendersParoleParole BoardParole PostponementsParoleesRisk Assessment |