Paroling Authority Self-Assessment Toolkit

Practice Target 4:

Use their influence and leverage to target institutional and community resources to mid and high risk offenders to address their criminogenic needs.

In addition to assessing static (unchangeable, historical) risk factors, empirically-based, actuarial instruments also assess dynamic (changeable) risk factors (often referred to as "criminogenic needs"). The presence of criminogenic needs has been directly linked with recidivism and effectively addressing these crime-influencing areas through effective interventions has been demonstrated to reduce recidivism. Recidivism is further reduced when multiple criminogenic needs are addressed (that is, intervention strategies that address 4-6 criminogenic needs have significantly better outcomes than those that target only 1-3). Research demonstrates that when supervision agencies focus the majority of their time on criminogenic needs (rather than on conditions unrelated to needs), recidivism can be reduced10.

Using the assessment scale below, select a response to each question that (in your judgment) best reflects how fully your state and your board currently implement this aspect of the practice target under consideration. After clicking the “submit” button at the end of this section, you can view and print a summary of your responses that you can then use to guide a discussion with your fellow board members.


Does your board:

Have access to and use empirical assessments of offenders that identify their level of risk?
No Progress
Toward Implementation
Some Significant Progress
Toward Implementation
Full Implementation Unknown
1 2 3 4 5
Consider program participation in release decision making?
No Progress
Toward Implementation
Some Significant Progress
Toward Implementation
Full Implementation Unknown
1 2 3 4 5
Use parole release as an incentive to encourage medium and high risk offenders to participate in prison-based programming that addresses their criminogenic needs?
No Progress
Toward Implementation
Some Significant Progress
Toward Implementation
Full Implementation Unknown
1 2 3 4 5
Engage other stakeholders and partners who are responsible for providing services to inmates and parolees (e.g., corrections, parole supervision, service providers) to prioritize and target treatment services to moderate and high risk offenders, and according to their assessed needs?
No Progress
Toward Implementation
Some Significant
Progress Toward Implementation
Full Implementation Unknown
1 2 3 4 5
Set preconditions of parole based on the risk level and criminogenic needs of offenders (i.e., requiring medium and high risk offenders to engage in risk reduction programming targeted to their assessed criminogenic need)?
No Progress
Toward Implementation
Some Significant Progress
Toward Implementation
Full Implementation Unknown
1 2 3 4 5
Refrain from requiring risk reduction programming for low risk offenders?
No Progress
Toward Implementation
Some Significant Progress
Toward Implementation
Full Implementation Unknown
1 2 3 4 5
Set parole supervision requirement regarding treatment based on the risk level and assessed criminogenic needs of individual offenders?
No Progress
Toward Implementation
Some Significant Progress
Toward Implementation
Full Implementation Unknown
1 2 3 4 5
In your judgment, how would you characterize your board’s progress in this area, considering the expectations/characteristics outlined above, and the previous discussion?
In your judgment, how would you rate the IMPORTANCE of bringing this practice target to full implementation in order for you to accomplish your goals as a paroling authority? Why?

< Practice Target 3

Practice Target 5 >