Building Strengths in Risk/Needs Assessment and Management
Correctional services are increasingly incorporating strength-based practices in risk/needs assessment and case management of justice-involved individuals; however, it is not always clear how to conceptualize strength, or how to use a justice-involved individual’s strengths to build rapport. The question then is, “How can we build on strengths in treatment planning?”
In this blog, we define the concept of strength and its place within the Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model, while unpacking related case studies and the future direction of this practice.
Defining ‘strength’
With the growing popularity and adoption of strength-based practices in case management, there are now more ways to conceptualize and measure strengths1. The foundation of most strength-based practices in corrections is to leverage a justice-involved individual’s strengths to promote positive outcomes. In MHS’ Level of Service assessments — a collection of risk/needs assessments that includes the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory™ (LS/CMI™) for adults and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory™ 2.0 (YLS/CMI™ 2.0) for youth — a strength is considered an exceptionally positive factor that may moderate the impact of risk factors for either a justice-involved adult or adolescent. Examples include complete abstinence from substances or having multiple prosocial friends. In academic literature, strengths are often referred to as promotive factors, which are negatively associated with recidivism regardless of the justice-involved person’s overall risk level.
Strength and its place in the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model
The RNR model is foundational to all risk/needs assessments that fall within MHS’ Level of Service suite2. In the RNR model, the risk principle emphasizes that the level of service should match the level of risk, the need principle helps determine what interventions should take priority based on the highest identified dynamic criminogenic need areas. On the other hand, the responsivity principle helps maximize the likelihood of positive outcomes by matching the type of intervention to the client’s abilities and strengths3. The RNR model encourages building on strengths and rewards non-criminal alternatives to risk factors linked to criminal activity4. In the Level of Service suite of risk/needs assessments, focusing on strengths is therefore considered crucial for both rapport building and effective case management5.
Case studies and the future direction of the practice
Empirical research on the impact of incorporating strengths in risk/needs assessments on risk and recidivism outcomes for justice-involved individuals is limited. However, an Australian study found that youths with strengths identified in the YLS/CMI were more than three times less likely to re-offend, even when accounting for their level of risk6.
From a research perspective, strengths may be considered particularly relevant for treatment planning as opposed to recidivism prediction. In a study that looked at promoting rehabilitation among youth on probation7, strengths were found to be specific responsivity factors — having an indirect effect on recidivism through their impact on youth’s engagement in, and completion of, services (service-to-needs match).
In addition to serving as a case management consideration, the presence of strengths can be communicated when discussing risk in forensic reports or expert testimony as well. A case law review by Urquhart and Viljoen8, two contributing authors of the International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, found that judges addressed specific protective factors or strengths in approximately 20% of the cases — identifying strengths related to, for example, limited criminal history, prosocial attitudes, and family circumstances. In some cases, judges noted that the absence of protective factors indicated a poor prognosis for the young person’s rehabilitation. This finding underlines the importance of commenting on any strengths that were identified in, for example, forensic report writing.
With regard to future directions, it would be beneficial to gain further insight into what protective factors or strengths tend to be present in adolescents and adults who avoid future offending. It is furthermore not entirely clear how strengths may influence override decision-making, which is an under-researched topic. Override decision-making in risk/needs assessment happens when an assessor overrides a justice-involved individual’s risk classification based on their professional judgment. Have a look at this blog for more information on professional judgment and override decision-making.
Although it is important to address the dynamic criminogenic needs of a justice-involved individual to change offending behavior, this does not happen in isolation. Assessing and addressing non-criminogenic needs and strengths as responsivity considerations for rapport building and case management is important. Those who work in corrections can use a justice-involved individual’s strengths to establish rapport, remove barriers to effective participation, facilitate motivation, and create a more therapeutic environment for effective correctional intervention.
References
1 Wanamaker, K. A., Jones, N. J., & Brown, S. L. (2018). Strengths-based assessments for use with forensic populations: A critical review. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 17(2), 202-221.
2 Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 19-52.
3 Bonta, J. (2023). The Risk-Need-Responsivity model: 1990 to the Present. HM Inspectorate of Probation.
4 Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2011). The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model: Does Adding the Good Lives Model Contribute to Effective Crime Prevention? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(7), 735-755.
5 Brown, S. L., Robinson, D., Wanamaker, K. A., & Wagstaff, M. (2020). Strengths Matter: Evidence From Five Separate Cohorts of Justice-Involved Youth and Adults Across North America. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(11), 1428-1447.
6 Shepherd, S. M., Strand, S., Viljoen, J. L., & Daffern, M. (2018). Evaluating the utility of ‘strength’ items when assessing the risk of young offenders. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 29(4), 597-616.
7 Finseth, S., Peterson-Badali, M., Brown, S. L., & Skilling, T. A. (2022). Promoting Rehabilitation Among Youth on Probation: An Examination of Strengths as Specific Responsivity Factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(5), 745-760.
8 Urquhart, T., & Viljoen, J. (2014). The use of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI in adolescent court proceedings: A case law review. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13(1), 47-61.
