< Previous30 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 3 INFORMATION PROCESSING MATTERS In conclusion, agencies can improve outcomes of correctional intervention if they take steps to identify— and address—the symptoms associated with SMI and the related functional and social impairments. Following through on the four recommendations listed above will be beneficial. Taking steps such as increasing agency and staff understanding of areas of need, providing specialty probation, and creating community partnerships to facilitate coordinated, client-centric programming will improve health and criminal justice outcomes for probationers with SMI and, importantly, support probation officers and benefit their agencies and the community. References Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2016). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. New York, NY: Routledge. Bonta, J., Blais, J., & Wilson, H. A. (2014). A theoretically informed meta-analysis of the risk for general and violent recidivism for mentally disordered offenders. Aggression and violent Behavior, 19(3), 278-287. Bonta, J., Law, M. & Hanson, C. (1998). The prediction of criminal and violent recidivism among mentally disordered offenders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 123-142 Brooker, C., Sirdifield, C., Marples, R. (2020). Mental health and probation: A systematic review of the literature. Forensic Sci International Mind and Law.1(1),100003. doi: 10.1016/j.fsiml.2019.100003 Callahan, L.A. & Silver, E. (1998). Revocation of conditional release: A comparison of individual and program characteristics across four US states. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 21(2), 177- 186. Eno Louden, J., Skeem, J. L., Camp, J. & Christensen, E. (2008). Supervising probationers with mental disorder: How do agencies respond to violations? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(7): 832-847. Epperson, M. W., Wolff, N. Morgan, R. D., Fisher, W. H., Frueh, B. C, & Huening, J. (2014). Envisioning the next generation of behavioral health and criminal justice interventions. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 37(5), 427-438. Gaspar, M., Brown, L., Ramler, T., Scanlon, F., Gigax, G., Ridley, K., & Morgan, R. D. (2019). Therapeutic outcomes of changing lives and changing outcomes for male and female justice involved persons with mental illness. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(12), 1678-1699. Junginger, J., Claypoole, K., Laygo, R., & Crisanti, A. (2006). Effects of serious mental illness and substance abuse on criminal offenses. Psychiatric Services, 57(6), 879-882. Manchak, S. M., Skeem, J. L., Kennealy, P. J., & Louden, J. E. (2014). High-fidelity specialty mental health probation improves officer practices, treatment access, and rule compliance. Law and Human Behavior, 38(5), 450. Morgan, R. D., Kroner, D., & Mills, J. F. (2018). A Treatment Manual for Justice Involved Persons with Mental Illness: Changing Lives and Changing Outcomes. Routledge. National Alliance on Mental Illness. (2017). The Doctor is Out: Continuing Disparities in Access to Mental and Peterson, J. K., Skeem, J. L., Hart, E., Vidal, S., & Keith, F. (2010). Analyzing offense patterns as a function of mental illness to test the criminalization hypothesis. Psychiatric Services, 61(12), 1217-1222. Skeem, J.L., Emke-Francis, P., & Louden, J. E. (2006). Probation, mental health and mandated treatment: A national survey. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 158-184. Skeem, J.L., Manchak, S. M., & Montoya, L. (2017). Comparing public safety outcomes for traditional probation versus specialty mental health probation. JAMA Psychiatry, 74(9), 942-948. Skeem, J.L., Manchak, S. M., & Peterson, J. K. (2011). Correctional policy for offenders with mental illness: Creating a new paradigm for recidivism reduction. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 110-126. Skeem, J. L., Winter, E., Kennealy, P. J., Louden, J. E., & Tatar II, J. R. (2014). Offenders with mental illness have criminogenic needs, too: toward recidivism reduction. Law and human behavior, 38(3), 212. 31 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INFORMATION PROCESSING MATTERS Schwalbe, C. S., & Maschi, T. M. (2012). Probation officers’ perspectives on interagency collaboration for juvenile offenders with mental health problems. Psychiatric Services, 63, (8), 830-833. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2015). Screening and Assessment of Co-occurring Disorders in the Justice System. HHS Publication No. PEP-19-SCREEN-CODJS. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Wilson, A. B., Farkas, K., Bonfine, N., & Duda-Banwar, J. (2018). Interventions that target criminogenic needs for justice-involved persons with serious mental illness: A targeted service delivery approach. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(7), 1838-1853. Wolff, N., Epperson, M., Shi, J., Huening, J., Schumann, B. E., & Sullivan, I. R. (2014). Mental health specialized probation caseloads: Are they effective? International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 37, 464-472. Author Bios: Ruth Simera, M. Ed, LSW, is the Executive Director of the Coordinating Centers of Excellence at Northeast Ohio Medical University, Department of Psychiatry. Previously, as Director of the Ohio Criminal Justice Coordinating Center of Excellence (CJ CCoE), Ruth oversaw the statewide CIT dissemination and technical assistance activities and the Ohio Sequential Intercept Mapping initiative. She currently oversees the CJ CCoE, the Best Practices in Schizophrenia Treatment (BeST) Center and the Ohio Program for Campus Safety and Mental Health. Ruth previously worked 26 years in community mental health, three years in juvenile justice, and ten years as an instructor at Kent State University. Natalie Bonfine, Ph.d., is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at Northeast Ohio Medical University. Dr. Bonfine graduated from Kent State University with a Ph.D. in Sociology. Her primary area of research is the overrepresentation of people with mental illness in the criminal justice system. She studies jail diversion alternatives for people with severe mental illness who may become involved in the criminal justice system. She is interested in cross-systems collaboration and coordination of care and services for people with mental illness, and she also has examined issues of stigma, empowerment, and stigma resistance.32 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 3 INFORMATION PROCESSING MATTERS Day & Woldgabreal: RACIAL AND CULTURAL IDENTITY MATTERS IN CORRECTIONAL INTERVENTION 33 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INFORMATION PROCESSING MATTERS Day & Woldgabreal: RACIAL AND CULTURAL IDENTITY MATTERS IN CORRECTIONAL INTERVENTION For some years now, the trend in correctional practices has been to rely on a psychology of criminal conduct framework that, as described by Bonta and Andrews (2017), focuses on the need to apply the core principles of risk, need, and responsivity. The risk principle distinguishes between static factors (personal characteristics that cannot be changed, such as criminal history, age and gender) and dynamic factors (characteristics amenable to change through intervention, such as pro-criminal attitudes and association with pro- criminal peers). The need principle is primarily concerned with what Andrews and Bonta (2010) call the “central eight” dynamic risk factors: anti-social personality, pro- criminal attitudes, pro-criminal associates, substance abuse, relationship problems, criminal history, and disengagement from employment and education. However, it is the third component, the responsivity principle, that is our focus here. The responsivity principle refers to the need to tailor interventions that target dynamic risk factors according to the motivation, learning styles, abilities, strengths, personality, and personal characteristics of individuals. Andrews (1995) and others further distinguish between what they call “general” and “specific” responsivity. General responsivity calls for the use of cognitive- behavioral methods, prosocial modeling, and the adoption of a warm and empathic interpersonal style– ideas that have subsequently come to be known as “core correctional practice” (see Dowden & Andrews, 2004). The idea of “specific” responsivity, however, encourages the correctional practitioner to think beyond the influence of program design and delivery style to also consider ways in which a range of personal characteristics influence rehabilitation outcomes (including the success of community-based supervision orders), such as age, gender, cognitive and intellectual ability, and racial and cultural identity (Blanchette & Brown, 2006). This, in turn, requires practitioners to think about the information that is most relevant to working effectively with different cohorts, including those from minoritized cultural backgrounds. It is in this context that having basic knowledge about the representation of different racial and cultural groups in correctional settings and how they typically experience supervision becomes critical. The case can be made that only then will more culturally safe–and ultimately more effective–rehabilitation programs be provided. It will therefore be worthwhile to consider the cross-cultural context of specific responsivity. In addition to providing an overview of the issue, we will highlight recent concerns that correctional systems are too often limited in their capacity to work cross-culturally and, importantly, that culturally responsive and inclusive practices are required to reduce recidivism among minoritized groups. The Scope of the Issue Statistics showing the overrepresentation of racially and ethnically minoritized individuals in criminal justice systems across most Western countries have led to a general recognition that factors such as ethnicity and culture too often play a role in regard to criminal justice involvement. For example, African Americans make up only12% of the overall population in the United States, but approximately 39% of the national prison population (Carson, 2020). Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) in England and Wales make up 14% of the overall population but represent 27% of all prisoners (Ministry of Justice, 2020). What is even more startling, though, is the overrepresentation of First Nations peoples in criminal justice systems around the world. For example, Māori people in Aotearoa/New Zealand, who make up 15% of the population, account for a staggering 52.7% of the national prison population (New Zealand Department of Corrections, 2021). Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia, who make up only 3% of the population, represent approximately 30% of the national prisoner population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021). Indigenous peoples, who make up 4.9% of the overall population in Canada, represent 30% of the prison population (Government of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator, 2022). Moreover, indigenous peoples in the United States represent 2.9% of the overall population but are incarcerated at a rate that is 38% higher than the general population (U.S. Department of Justice, 2021). Culture-Specific Correctional Intervention These official statistics draw our attention to the need to consider race or ethnicity as a key responsivity issue. They prompt questions about the differential impacts OBSERVATIONS ON RISK ASSESSMENTS AND RACIAL EQUITY34 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 3 INFORMATION PROCESSING MATTERS of rehabilitation efforts for diverse cultural groups and whether they have been adequately tailored to actively engage participants and meet their needs. Unfortunately, cultural knowledge from, or about, minoritized communities is not well documented in the correctional literature, despite the diverse cultural profile of prison populations, especially in those countries that have a history of colonization (e.g., the United States, Canada, Australia, Aotearoa/New Zealand). For some, this absence of knowledge about the cultural needs of people in receipt of correctional services represents a form of discriminatory practice that places minoritized groups at an unfair disadvantage when it comes to efforts to make sense of their social experience. It homogenizes thinking and promotes the assumption that specific responsivity in relation to culture is unimportant (e.g., Day et al., 2021). Furthermore, Kerrison (2017), in her discussion of prison substance use treatment programs, concludes that “making a case for race neutrality, despite overwhelming evidence of unequivocal race-based prison services, is a calculated act of racial injustice” (p. 584). In short, it has been suggested that correctional rehabilitation modalities that are primarily based on the status, values, and experiences of dominant culture groups have largely failed to cater to the specific needs of minoritized groups. Although justice-involved people clearly can benefit from standard correctional programs irrespective of ethnic background (Usher & Stewart, 2014), evidence shows a strong need for culturally tailored programs. For example, a study by Spiropoulos (2007) in Ohio examined the efficacy of a Reasoning and Rehabilitation program in a sample of 940 White and African Americans. The author reported that African Americans had higher recidivism rates than the White American parolees who participated in the same program, attributing the relative ineffectiveness of the program to a lack of adherence to the specific responsivity principle (in this case, to the absence of program content that recognized the specific experiences of African Americans). A similar conclusion was reached by other researchers when they examined the role of specific responsivity in a sample of White and African Americans who had completed a standard cognitive behavioral intervention and found that the White participant groups evidenced lower recidivism rates compared to the African American ones (Van Voorhis et al., 2013). This suggests, perhaps, that a “one-size-fits-all” approach to treatment and supervision that fails to acknowledge and validate the historical, social, political, and economic inequalities and disadvantages of minoritized groups will be less likely to engender the confidence and engagement required achieve optimal rehabilitation outcomes (Jeglic & Calkins, 2018). Specific responsivity factors have also been cited as the most common reason behind high rate of program attrition among minoritized group cohorts, with attrition widely believed to contribute to risk of increased recidivism (e.g., Carl & Lösel, 2020; Wormith & Olver, 2002). It is not uncommon, for example, for minoritized groups to be expected to comply with conventional mainstream treatment programs that are built on white and middle- class values/norms and often delivered by clinicians who do not share their culture. The higher attrition rates should therefore come as no surprise. Participants may find programs unhelpful for a range of reasons, including a lack of trust because of their experience of racism, discrimination, feeling forced to participate in programs that seem inconsistent with their values and beliefs, and language barriers. Interventions that are culturally sensitive and delivered by culturally competent practitioners or those from similar backgrounds are thought more effective (e.g., Neller et al., 2016). Addressing the Impacts of Racial and Cultural Identity in the Correctional Setting Specific responsivity factors have also been cited as replacing generic or mainstream services with more culturally relevant programming appears to be one of the most obvious ways to improve specific responsivity in relation to cultural issues. Evidence for this comes from a 2018 meta-analytic study by Gutierrez et al. that examined traditional healing programs in Canada and New Zealand specifically designed to improve participants’ knowledge related to their cultural history, skills, values, and beliefs. Studies included in the meta- analysis were also selected based on their language accessibility, format, and historical context; including a focus on addressing institutionalized trauma that is transmitted intergenerationally. The authors reported that justice-involved Indigenous Canadians and Maori people of New Zealand who completed a healing program had significantly lower odds of recidivism than those who completed conventional or mainstream programs. They 35 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INFORMATION PROCESSING MATTERS specifically noted that programs that had been designed with justice-involved Indigenous people in mind (i.e., were consistent with specific responsivity) resulted in a 9% lower recidivism rate (as well as improved relationships and well-being) compared to those not categorized in this way. Workforce Development One of the most common ways in which correctional agencies have sought to improve cultural competence (a term generally used to refer to the ability to understand and interact effectively with people from other cultures) is through workforce development. It is often assumed that the competence of individual practitioners can be strengthened by participation in cultural awareness training that provides them with information about different cultural groups, their cultures, and their interactions with one another in the larger societal context. Cultural competence is also concerned with practitioners’ ongoing commitment to consultations and collaborations with minoritized justice-involved people, their families, and their communities. The goal here is for practitioners to become more aware of the impact of their own cultural beliefs and attitudes on their relationships with others. It is anticipated that this will help them to avoid making assumptions about which type of program will work best and how it should be delivered, as well as help them to better understand and incorporate different perspectives (Farrow, Kelly, & Wilkinson, 2007). It has also been argued, however, that this type of training, especially as is typically made available to correctional staff, falls short of what is needed. What makes it inadequate is the tendency to emphasize the need for the individual practitioner to be responsive rather than encouraging reflection on the more structural processes that also influence rehabilitative success—for example, how prisons represent a culmination of the effects of historical and social forces that lead to avoidable suffering and mortality for certain groups and constrain their life chances (see Day et al., 2021). We would argue that it is only through developing an understanding of the structural issues (e.g., experiences of disempowerment and oppression) facing minorized groups that practitioners can meaningfully build effective working relationships to support efforts to desist from crime. Strategies that can help to reduce this practice gap include the design and development of programs informed by cultural knowledge and worldviews of minoritized groups, their historical contexts, consideration for language barriers, intergenerational trauma, and sustained cross-cultural competence of practitioners. Conclusion A concrete example of how progress can be achieved in this type of work might be progressed comes from Canada, where Gladue reports have now become commonplace in matters involving First Nations people who appear before the courts for sentencing. A Gladue report is a written document that weaves together the defendant’s narrative with information from interviews with family, Elders, and community members, with similar models now developed in other countries (e.g., Australian Law Reform Commission, 2018). This type of specialist report aims to describe the person’s unique experiences as an Indigenous person, as well as the broader cultural context in which the offence took place. Such reports provide a way of curating relevant cultural information for the courts and would appear to have great applicability to the correctional setting as well. References As we have argued above, attending to issues of specific responsivity that relate to ethnicity and culture is key to the success of rehabilitative and community supervision efforts in correctional settings. Agencies and their staff must develop an awareness of the factors that lead minoritized groups to come into contact with the justice system. They must increase their cultural knowledge in order to engage with these individuals in a way that identifies their lived experience as relevant and important to their rehabilitative success. They also must implement applicable workforce development programs and make other organizational changes to improve performance this area. Unless active measures are taken to develop more responsive and inclusive practices, our correctional systems will continue to be unacceptably limited in their capacity to work cross-culturally. References Andrews. D. A. (1995). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct and Effective Treatment. John Wiley & Sons. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39–55. 36 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 3 INFORMATION PROCESSING MATTERS Australian Bureau of Statistics (2021). Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander prisoner characteristics. Retrieved from Australian Law Reform Commission [ALRC] (2018). Sentencing Aboriginal Offenders in Canada. Retrieved Blanchette, K., & Brown, S. L. (2006). The Assessment and Treatment of Women Offenders: An Integrative Perspective. John Wiley & Sons. Bonta, J., & Andrews D. A. (2017). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, Sixth Edition. New York: Routledge. Carl, L. C., & Lösel, F. (2021). When sexual offender treatment in prison-based social-therapeutic treatment is not completed: Relationship to risk factors and recidivism after release. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 31, 421-435. doi: 10.1002/cbm.2220. Carson, E. A. (2020). Prisoners in 2020 – Statistical Tables. United States Bureau of Justice Statistics. Day, A., Tamatea, A., & Geia, L. (2021). Cross cultural practice frameworks. Aggression and Violent Behavior. Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2004). Importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 203–214. Farrow, K., Kelly, G., & Wilkinson, B. (2007). Offenders in Focus: Risk, Responsivity and Diversity. Bristol University Press. Jeglic, E. L. & Calkins, C. (2018). New frontiers in offender treatment: The translation of evidence-based practices to correctional settings. Springer. Government of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator (2022). Annual Report 2020-2021. Retrieved from Gutierrez, L., Chadwick, N., & Wanamaker, K. A. (2018). Culturally relevant programming versus the status quo: A meta-analytic review of the effectiveness of treatment of indigenous offenders. Canadian Journal of Kerrison, E. M. (2017). An historical review of racial bias in prison-based substance abuse treatment design. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 56(8), 567-592, doi:10.1080/ 10509674.2017.1363114 Ministry of Justice (2020). National statistics: Ethnicity and the criminal justice system statistics 2020. Retrieved Neller, D. J., Vitacco, M. J., Magaletta, P. R., & Phillips- Boyles, A. B. (2016). Eliciting responsivity: Exploring programming interests of federal inmates as a function of security classification. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60, 423-434. New Zealand Department of Corrections. (2021). Prison Statistics. Retrieved from Spiropoulos, G. V. (2007). The neglect of racial responsivity: An examination of why race matters in correctional treatment. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved U.S. Department of Justice. (2021, December). Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2020 (NCJ 302776). Usher, A. M., & Stewart, L. A. (2014). Effectiveness of correctional programs with ethnically diverse offenders: A meta-analytic study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58, 209–230. doi: 10.1177/0306624X12469507 Van Voorhis, P., Spiropoulos, G., Ritchie, P.N., Seabrook, R., & Spruance, L. (2013). Identifying areas of 126 specific responsivity in cognitive-behavioral treatment outcomes. 37 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INFORMATION PROCESSING MATTERS Wormith, J. S., & Olver, M. E. (2002). Offender treatment attrition and its relationship with risk, responsivity and recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 447 471. Author Bios Andrew Day, D.Clin.Psy., is an Enterprise Professor in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne, having previously worked as a correctional psychologist in the UK and Australia. His research interests focus on the provision of humane and effective correctional services, especially those that can help to rehabilitate or facilitate desistance. Yilma Woldgabreal, PhD., is a Senior Clinician at the Department for Correctional Services in South Australia and an Honorary Fellow of the School of Psychology at Deakin University in Victoria, Australia. He has more than 20 years’ experience in both community correctional and prison settings. His research focuses on cross- cultural assessment and rehabilitation programs, with particular interest in the application of positive psychology interventions with individuals who have committed offences. 38 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 3 INFORMATION PROCESSING MATTERS ADVANCING RESPONSIVITY FOR JUSTICE INVOLVED LGBTQ+ YOUTH AND ADULTS Roig-Palmer & Lutze:39 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INFORMATION PROCESSING MATTERS The Risk-Need-Responsivity Model (RNR) is broadly supported by research to guide “what works” in correctional settings, with most effort placed on quantifying an individual’s criminogenic risks (likelihood to re-offend) and categorizing an individual’s needs (underlying causes for justice involvement). Less attention overall has been paid to responsivity and to finding answers to qualitative questions about what it means to deliver services to justice-involved individuals in the most effective manner. Responsivity is based on the relationship principle, “establishing warm, respectful and collaborative working alliances with the client,” and the structuring principle, advancing change through “appropriate modeling, reinforcement, problem- solving” organized around strengthening prosocial behavior (Bonta & Andrews, 2007; Roig-Palmer & Lutze, 2021). Responsivity is critical to achieving successful outcomes for marginalized and vulnerable populations, such as justice-involved LGBTQ+ youth and adults. Although it is unknown how many LGBTQ+ youth and adults are being supervised in the community, there is evidence to suggest that they are overrepresented in the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems. Scientifically rigorous studies estimate that 4% (13 million) of the United States population in the 13 and older age range identify as LGBT (Conron & Goldberg, 2020). Additionally, even though Gallup polls are not considered rigorous, the fact that Gallup Daily Tracking Survey data from 2022 revealed that 8% of U.S. adults identified with the LGBT community 1is considered noteworthy in the eyes of scholars.2 In comparison to the approximate 3% of all adults who have gone to prison or jail, 16% of Trans* adults report having been incarcerated during their lifetime, and approximately 13-20% of juveniles in detention centers report being LGBT (as cited in Kahle & Rosenbaum, 2021). Trimble (2019, p. 31) reports that, “LGBTQ people are sent to prison for a wide range of convictions, with most tracing their first incarceration to their juvenile years.” Since gender identity and sexual orientation are generally established during earlier stages of life, it is important to fully understand the intersectional pathways that LGBTQ+ youth and adults confront throughout their life course that increase their chances of becoming justice-involved. Being responsive to LGBTQ+ individuals requires an understanding of the evidence showing that LGBTQ+ individuals continually experience micro- and macro- level aggressions that attempt to invalidate their core gender identity and sexual orientation and/or gender expressions through familial, social, educational, legal, medical, economic, religious, and political institutions (Foy et al., 2019; Moe et al., 2015; Roig- Palmer, 2022). These institutions, including prisons and community corrections, too often explicitly or implicitly define LGBTQ+ individuals and their core identity as deviant, abnormal, and illegal (Foy et al., 2019; Iacono, 2019; Moe et al., 2015). Thus, the person is defined as deviant in addition to being labeled for the behaviors or actions that brought them into the criminal justice system. Not surprisingly, it is emotionally, psychologically, and physically risky for LGBTQ+ individuals to openly engage with corrections professionals who are not knowledgeable or purposefully responsive to the entirety of LGBTQ+ clients’ lives. LGBTQ+ individuals, as members of an oppressed and marginalized group, often experience high levels of minority stress and have significantly higher rates of mental health disorders (depression, anxiety, etc.), suicide (ideation/attempts/completions), histories of interpersonal violence victimization (i.e., bullying, intimate partner violence, or sexual assault), homelessness, unemployment, and other life stressors (Knight & Wilson, 2016). Too often, LGBTQ+ justice- involved individuals’ responses to minority stress and discrimination are misidentified as criminogenic risk instead of need. Thus, they remain underserved due to a failure to further develop specific responsivity when implementing the RNR model. Roig-Palmer and Lutze (2021, p. 4) recently observed that, like women and BIPOC, the “LGBTQ+ population has also received limited attention and therefore have not been attended to scientifically and are consequently disadvantaged in contemporary evidenced-based mandates to fund and implement ‘what works.’” Although the field has advanced the perspectives of evidence-based practice, trauma-informed care, and gender responsivity (especially for cisgendered3 girls/ women), LGBTQ+ individuals have been severely neglected and narrowly stereotyped within each of IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IMPAIRED DRIVING ASSESSMENT: LESSONS LEARNEDNext >