Abstract:
Research has shown that addressing criminogenic needs of offenders, both juvenile and adult, can reduce the likelihood of recidivism. Utilizing the Risk Need Responsivity theory (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990; Andrews, Zinger, et al., 1990), the hypothesis for this small case study of youth recidivist and non-recidivists in interior Alaska was developed to compare data to determine if what is identified in research models to reduce recidivism correlated to what was applied in practice with juvenile offenders. Specifically this comparative case study intended to show that youth who had case plans which were identified to be "inadequate," that they had fewer than 75% of the identified criminogenic needs from their YLS/CMI addressed on their case plan, would be more likely to recidivate. Further, youth who had case plans which were identified to be "adequate," that they had greater than 75% of their identified criminogenic needs from their YLS/CMI addressed on their case plan, would be less likely to recidivate.The case study also compared case plans of recidivists and non-recidivists in the use of dynamic criminogenic needs and any subsequent impact on recidivism. After the statistical analysis of both the efficacy of case plans addressing individual criminogenic needs as well as the efficacy of case plans addressing dynamic criminogenic needs and their impact on reduction of recidivism, only the later analysis of dynamic criminogenic needs was able to reject the null hypothesis; that inclusion of criminogenic needs on a case plan has no impact on recidivism.
