< Previous40 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 3 INFORMATION PROCESSING MATTERS these approaches as currently implemented across many correctional contexts (Kahle & Rosenbaum, 2021; Roig-Palmer, 2022; Roig-Palmer et al., 2022; Roig-Palmer & Lutze, 2021). LGBTQ+ individuals often live at the intersections of marginalized identities related to race, ethnicity, 4cisgendered women, ablism, and other forms of marginalization (see Iacono, 2019). The coexistence of these multiple types of marginalization is often referred to as intersectionality—the way in which various forms of oppression may occur simultaneously, creating multi-layered situational oppression within a person’s life (Johnson, 2005; Kendall, 2020; Ritchie, 2012; Ward, 2008; Young, 1990, 2011). Failing to identify and understand the marginalization and complex situational oppression experienced by LGBTQ+ individuals undermines clients’ potential for long-term success (see Canfield et al., 2020). This underscores the importance of understanding intersectionality in relation to services, programs, and interventions in order to achieve supervision outcomes beyond rule compliance. For LGBTQ+ individuals, especially justice-involved clients, negative experiences with formal institutions (police, courts, prison, schools, healthcare, etc.) during childhood, adolescence, and into adulthood are likely to have a cumulative effect culminating in justifiable distrust of authority figures by the time they reach correctional settings (Jacmin-Park et al., 2022; Owen et al., 2018; Town et al., 2021). Fortunately, research across disciplines—including counseling, social work, education, and criminal justice—shows that agencies, professionals, and programs specifically designed to be responsive to LGBTQ+ lived experiences are appreciated by sexual and gender minority individuals, enhance engagement with staff and program participation, and are likely to improve program/ participant outcomes (Ansara, & Hegarty, 2014; Beam, 2018; Spade, 2015). Responsivity may be achieved through several tactics for justice-involved LGBTQ+ youth and young adults. First, agencies and staff must eliminate stigma, marginalization, and exclusionary organizational cultures and practices that replicate the oppression and discrimination experienced by LGBTQ+ individuals in the broader society. Agencies that actively implement evidence-based practices are well positioned to become responsive to LGBTQ+ clients. For example, staff who work in agencies that have a positive organizational climate, interagency networks, leadership support for evidence-based practices, and quality training and resources are more likely to implement evidence-based practices that adhere to best practices, have integrity, and enhance outcomes (Batastini et al., 2022; Blasko et al., 2022; Lutze, 2014). Within such agencies, creating public spaces (waiting rooms, classrooms, bathrooms, hallways) that are visually welcoming (posters, brochures, magazines, etc.), educating staff in the use of gender- affirming language (proper use of pronouns, etc.), and using written forms that replace heteronormative language with neutral or inclusive language representing gender diversity are often initial indicators signaling a safe environment (Kahle & Rosenbaum, 2021; Moe et al., 2015; Ward, 2008). As evident in the following quotation, inclusive environments create an opportunity for engagement and highlight the importance of being recognized by others for one’s true identity in social and professional settings: “I mean, this is the first time in twenty-two years of my life that I have ever been recognized by my chosen name, and by someone who cares about me and respects me for who I truly am, and how I truly identify.” (Trans, Young Adult) Second, the need for a safe environment for LGBTQ+ staff and justice-involved individuals alike must be fully recognized and addressed through meaningful policy and change. Although the focus of this article is on the justice-involved, it is important to acknowledge that LGBTQ+ staff—and their workplace and community allies—should also know their safety is not compromised as they work with sexual and gender minority youth and adults (Mennicke et al., 2018). Unfortunately, LGBTQ+ staff and allies are not inherently accepted within justice settings, which may result in negative judgments or various forms of abuse by colleagues and/or clients. The following narrative demonstrate such experiences: “Nobody really knows the extent of my sister and her partner’s relationship at work. She’s a psychologist and her partner is a correctional officer so they rarely interact at work. It’s not a place where she can just openly be herself ….” (Ally, Adult Advocate) 41 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INFORMATION PROCESSING MATTERS Thus, addressing safety requires that cisgendered, heteronormative staff assess and address their worldview and potential biases (see Owen et al., 2018). Safety also includes creating an emotional, psychological, and organizational climate of inclusivity free from sexism and homophobia—a climate that assures physical, economic, and professional security (Canfield et al., 2020; Mennicke et al., 2018). As the responsivity principle is advanced, reformers must be conscious of the emotional labor involved, for those who are asked to professionally engage beyond the narrow parameters of compliance and/or a list of available programs face secondary trauma, burnout, and compassion fatigue (Batastini et al., 2022; Kerig, 2019; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), 2014). Rarely is this emotional labor necessary to fully engage the responsivity principle recognized in the RNR model. To achieve it requires situational and qualitatively different relationship building with staff and the justice- involved clients at all levels of implementation versus overreliance on data-driven summary risk/need scores solely focused on clients. Third, it must be recognized that risk/need assessments based on the RNR model possess an inherent bias that preempts staff and oversimplifies gender and sexual orientation. For example, the RNR model recognizes “gender” as a static demographic that cannot change along the course of interventions. Moreover, this demographic is auto-populated via software programs that mark an individual upon intake to the system. The binary male or female gender categories are likely to mis-specify LGBTQ+ individuals into a heteronormative social/ cultural understanding that dictates heteronormative responses associated with traditional sex roles and behavioral expectations ascribed to cis women and men (Johnson, 2005; Mogul et al., 2011; Ritchie, 2017). In other words, LGBTQ+ clients are often placed into programs that are based on binary, heteronormative, cisgendered norms. Such programs are often the source of stress, stigmatization, discrimination, and victimization for those with more fluid sex and gender identities beyond the binary. Thus, LGBTQ+ clients are deprived of receiving support, treatment, or sanctions that promote positive outcomes when compared with clients who do not identify with the sexual and gender minority population. Although we have focused primarily on LGBTQ+ individuals, it is also important to note how detrimental an exclusively binary approach can be to cisgendered, heterosexual individuals (Ford, 2019; Johnson, 2005). Most correctional programs, including the RNR model, were designed based on male samples and extrapolated to girls and women (Van Voorhis, 2012; Van Voorhis et al., 2010). Thus, embedded within these programs are many traditional, patriarchal sex role stereotypes that value masculinity and therefore interpret risk and needs as male identified (men as the norm), male centered (men as most important), and male dominated (controlled by men) (see Ford, 2019; Johnson, 2005). The feelings of normalcy within many traditional programs for staff and participants underestimate the effect of strict rules dictating appropriate behaviors that align with cisgender identity. This may limit cisgendered, heteronormative individuals from seeking broader experiences because they fear being ridiculed or stigmatized for breaking traditional gender rules when crossing socially constructed gender boundaries related to work, relationships, parenting, sports, the arts, and other activities often perceived as belonging primarily to only one gender. Gender-responsive approaches have begun to address these concerns for cis girls and women, are being extrapolated to LGBTQ+ populations, and can be extended to programs involving cis boys and men to address toxic masculinity (Covington & Bloom, 2007; Ford, 2019; Kahle & Rosenbaum, 2021; Soyer, 2018; Van Voorhis et al., 2010). Oversubscribing to gender and sex role stereotypes limits innovation and undermines full engagement in the process of change. Fourth, the RNR model must be implemented in a manner that ensures attention given to the responsivity principle is equal to or greater than the attention given to the risk and need principles. The responsivity principle, when implemented with integrity, will work to properly define the risks and the needs of sexual and gender minority individuals. LGBTQ+ individuals may be more likely to fully engage in counseling and treatment when the fear of stigmatization, discrimination, and/or hypervigilance about the negative outcomes of disclosure are eliminated (Foy et al., 2019). Thus, whether working within corrections or spanning across professional boundaries to use the services of other agencies (Lutze, 2014), programs must be designed for LGBTQ+ individuals to have the 42 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 3 INFORMATION PROCESSING MATTERS opportunity to fully engage with culturally competent staff when complying with supervision through work, programs, and treatment. Finally, specific responsivity in practice requires an affirmation of strength-based approaches to address gender and LGBTQ+ individuals’ risks and needs by moving past a deficit-focused approach. This equates to staffing and interventions equipped with the knowledge in how physical and mental health concerns (hormone treatment, psychological care plans, anxiety, depression, suicide ideation, etc.) are interconnected in various ways to social stigmatizations (Goodman, 2015) while simultaneously creating space to affirm the diversity of gender identities and sexual orientations existing throughout the shared community. The following comment captures the essence of utilizing strength-based approaches: “Having a space that lets you be yourself allows for self discovery and uncovering more aspects of your personality that give you strength to love yourself. You have to find your inner strength and who you are before you can rise up to make changes.” -(Gay, Adult Advocate) Conclusion and Recommendations Much progress has been made in advancing our understanding of how to deliver effective services to justice-involved individuals in a way that is responsive to gender identity and sexual orientation. While anticipating further research in this area, it is past time for agencies to take important first steps that will increase the likelihood of positive outcomes. Drawing on a variety of sources (Batastini et al., 2022; Foy et al., 2019; Iacono, 2019; Kahle & Rosenbaum, 2021; Moe et al., 2015; Roig- Palmer, 2022; Roig-Palmer & Lutze, 2021), here is a set of recommendations that can help correctional programs achieve their responsivity goals: Reduce the anticipation and anxiety about experiencing prejudice or discrimination within the program by corrections professionals, providers, and participants. Empower clients to navigate their own disclosure process (if desired) within a safe space created by providers across the criminal, social, and health systems of care. Give appropriate attribution to LGBTQ+ experiences as they directly relate to current issues of risk and need without over-pathologizing sexual/gender identity when interpreting attitudes and behaviors. Affirmatively allow LGBTQ+ participants to define through their experiential lens whether their gender identity and/or sexual orientation may or may not relate to their justice involvement. Address the emotional, psychological, and physical trauma experienced by LGBTQ+ individuals without assuming a specific history or type of trauma. Expand gender-responsive programs to address cisgender and LGBTQ+ comprehensive approaches. Include LGBTQ+ materials in preexisting structured programs (T4C, etc.) and/or in designing specific therapies that allow for the exploration of minority stress experiences on mental health, criminogenic risk, and individualized needs based on the uniqueness of LGBTQ+ lived experience and pathways to crime. In conclusion, being responsive to each individual’s gender identity and sexual orientation is critical to achieving positive outcomes for staff and clients alike. The factors of intersectionality, minority stress, and specific responsivity need to be understood and fully integrated into the RNR model and practices if corrections professionals want to implement evidence- based practices relevant to the entirety of the justice- involved population. Most importantly, the authors are asking everyone to set aside political and personal opinions, as it is every person’s obligation to be aware of “what works” and to take an authentic stride toward improving everyone’s quality of life and reducing crime and victimization. proactively determining risk and need priorities. References Ansara, Y. G., & Hegarty, P. (2014). Methodologies of misgendering: Recommendations for reducing cisgenderism in psychological research. Feminism & Psychology, 24(2), 259-270. Batastini, A. B., Jones, A. C. T., Patel, M., & Pringer, S. M. (2022). Why correctional service providers and researchers should focus on intersectionality and recommendations to get started. Criminal43 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INFORMATION PROCESSING MATTERS Beam, M. (2018). Gay, Inc.: The Nonprofitization of Queer Politics. Minneapolis; London: University of Minnesota Press Blasko, B. L., Viglione, J., Taylor, L. R., & Taxman, F. S. (2022). Sorting through the evidence: A step toward prioritization of evidence-based community supervision practices. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(6), 817–837. Bonta, J. & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, 6(1), 1–22. Canfield, A., Irvine, A., Wilber, S., & Larrabee-Garza, M. (2020). The Whole Youth Model: How collecting data about sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression (SOGIE) helps probation and youth courts build more authentic relationships focused on improved CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers & Movement Advancement Project [MAP]. (2016). 2016 LGBT community center survey report: Assessing the capacity and programs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community centers. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Movement Advancement Project. Conron, K. & Goldberg, S. (2022). LGBT people in the United States not protected by state non-discrimination statutes (Issue Brief). The Williams Institute. https:// williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbt- responsive treatment and services in correctional settings. Women & Therapy, 29(3–4), 9–33. https://doi.org/10.1300/ J015v29n03_02 toxic masculinity. Oneworld Publications. Foy, A. A. J., Morris, D., Fernandes, V., & Rimes, K. A. (2019). LGBTQ+ adults’ experiences of improving access to psychological therapies and primary care counselling services: Informing clinical practice and service delivery. The Cognitive Behaviour Therapist, 12, e42. https://doi. org/10.1017/S1754470X19000291 Goodman, D. J. (2015). Oppression and privilege: Two sides of the same coin. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 18, 1-14. Hodge, J. P., & Sexton, L. (2020). Examining the blue line in the rainbow: The interactions and perceptions of law enforcement among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer communities. Police Practice and Research, Iacono, G. (2019). An affirmative mindfulness approach for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth mental health. Clinical Social Work Journal, 47(2), 156– 166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-018-0656-7 Jacmin-Park, S., Rossi, M., Dumont, L., Lupien, S. J., & Juster, R. P. (2022). Mental Health and Social Support of Sexual and Gender Diverse People from Québec, Canada During the COVID-19 Crisis. LGBT Health, 9(3), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2021.0255 Johnson, A. (2005). The gender knot: Unraveling our patriarchal legacy (Revised and Updated). Temple University Press. Kahle, L. L., & Rosenbaum, J. (2021). What staff need to know: Using elements of gender-responsive programming to create safer environments for system-involved LGBTQ girls and women. Criminal Justice Studies, 34(1), 1–15. Kerig, P. K. (2019). Enhancing resilience among providers of trauma-informed care: A curriculum for protection against secondary traumatic stress among non-mental health professionals. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 28(5), 613–630. and Trans people (LGBT) and the criminal justice system. Palgrave Macmillan. Lutze, F. E. (2014). The professional lives of community corrections officers: The invisible side of reentry. Sage. Mennicke, A., Gromer, J., Oehme, K., & MacConnie, L. (2018). Workplace experiences of gay and lesbian criminal justice officers in the United States: A qualitative investigation of officers attending a LGBT law enforcement conference. Policing and Society, 28(6), 712–729. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2016.123891844 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 3 INFORMATION PROCESSING MATTERS Moe, J. L., Finnerty, P., Sparkman, N., & Yates, C. (2015). Initial Assessment and screening with LGBTQ clients: A critical perspective. Journal of LGBTQ Issues Mogul, J., Ritchie, A., & Whitlock, K. (2011). Queer (in) justice: The criminalization of LGBT people in the United States. Beacon Press. Owen, S. S., Burke, T. W., Few-Demo, A. L., & Natwick, J. (2018). Perceptions of the Police by LGBT Communities. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(3), 668–693. Ritchie, A. (2017). Invisible no more: Police violence against black women and women of color. Beacon Press. Roig-Palmer, K. (2022). Translating theory into practice: Evaluating a prevention program for LGBTQ+ youth and Roig-Palmer, K., Campagna, M., Towne, K., & Spohn, R. (2022). Enhancing the margins of reentry: How to put responsivity into explicit practice. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Meeting Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, March, 2022 in Las Vegas, NV. Roig-Palmer, K., & Lutze, F. E. (2021). Confronting oppression: Reframing need and advancing responsivity for LGBTQ+ youth and young adults. Women & Criminal Shields, D. M. (2021). Stonewalling in the Brick City: Perceptions of and Experiences with Seeking Police Assistance among LGBTQ Citizens. Social Sciences, 10(1), Soyer, M. (2018). Lost childhoods: Poverty, trauma, and violent crime in the post-welfare era. University of California Press. Spade, D. (2015). Normal life: Administrative violence, critical trans politics, and the limits of law. London, United Kingdom: Duke University Press. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2014). Trauma-Informed care in behavioral health services: Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series 57. Rockville, MD: HHS Publication. Trimble, P. E. (2019). Ignored LGBTQ prisoners: Discrimination, rehabilitation, and mental health services during incarceration. LGBTQ Policy J, 9, 31-37. Town, R., Hayes, D., Fonagy, P., & Stapley, E. (2021). A qualitative investigation of LGBTQ+ young people’s experiences and perceptions of self-managing their mental health. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. Van Voorhis, P. (2012). On behalf of women offenders: Women’s place in the science of evidence-based practice. Van Voorhis, P., Wright, E. M., Salisbury, E., & Bauman, A. (2010). Women’s Risk Factors and Their Contributions to Existing Risk/Needs Assessment: The Current Status of a Gender-Responsive Supplement. Criminal Ward, J. (2008). Respectably queer: Diversity culture in LGBT activist organizations. Vanderbilt University Press. Author Bios Krystal Roig-Palmer, Ph.D., has worked for almost two decades with marginalized youth and adult populations (such as homeless, LGBTQ+, BIPOC) in community-based organizations and both juvenile and adult correctional settings. Her research examines alternative methods to analyze youth and adult programs to determine whether program interventions are responsive to target populations. More recently, she developed a qualitative methodology that can be utilized to determine whether fluid-structured program interventions (voluntary participation) are grounded in principles of evidence-based practice, and she has published the results of her research in Justice Evaluation Journal, Women & Criminal Justice, and the Journal of Justice Education. Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology Washington State University 904-535-4287 E-mail: 45 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INFORMATION PROCESSING MATTERS Faith E. Lutze, Ph.D., is a Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Washington State University. Her current research interests include gender and justice, correctional industries, prison environments, homelessness and reentry, justice-involved veterans, and peer mentors. Dr. Lutze is the author of the book, The Professional Lives of Community Corrections Officers: The Invisible Side of Reentry (2014) and has published the results of her research in numerous journals, including the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Justice Quarterly, Crime & Delinquency, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, and the Journal of Criminal Justice. Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology Washington State University P.O. Box 644872 Pullman, WA, 99164-4872 509-335-2272 E-mail: 46 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 3 INFORMATION PROCESSING MATTERS BATASTINI, JONES, PRINGER, & PATEL: INCORPORATING INTERSECTIONALITY IN COMMUNITY CORRECTION INTERVENTION 47 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INFORMATION PROCESSING MATTERS BATASTINI, JONES, PRINGER, & PATEL: INCORPORATING INTERSECTIONALITY IN COMMUNITY CORRECTION INTERVENTION Incorporating Intersectionality in Community Corrections In the late 1980s, activist and legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw introduced the construct of “intersectionality” to describe and begin addressing the ways in which racism and sexism interacted to create compounded experiences of marginalization and oppression for Black women in the United States (see Crenshaw, 1989). Today, the theory of intersectionality is applied more broadly in social justice advocacy and includes myriad non-majority biological, social, and/or cultural identity characteristics that combine to increase the potency of discrimination and create significant barriers to equitable treatment (Hester et al., 2020). Intersectionality is more than simply recognizing these multi-layered and multiplicative experiences of discrimination. It is about using this increased understanding to disrupt the status quo and improve the lives of the people who are most impacted (Masri, 2019). Intersectionality has been a topic of discussion within multiple disciplines and professions, including criminal justice (e.g., Paik, 2017; Steffensmeier et al., 2017; Varghese et al., 2019; Wesley & Dewey, 2018), and it has relevance for people on community supervision as well as for those working in that field. This paper is intended to clarify the meaning of this term and the adjustment in perspective that it entails. The authors present the case that the intersectionality construct can be truly useful in terms of rethinking theoretical frameworks in the field of community corrections. At the same time, it is important to prevent intersectionality from being misconstrued, because, after all, consideration of the systems that create experiences of intersectionality for justice- involved people does not absolve responsibility for bad behavior—nor does promoting responsibility- taking mean that people are to blame for being oppressed. Clearly, there is a need to explore the ways in which the intersectionality perspective can really matter in terms of improved responsivity and program effectiveness. After making the case that integrating intersectionality into community corrections is important, we go on to provide manageable strategies for staff to help reverse the consequences of intersectionality. Why Intersectionality Matters in Community Corrections Although conversations around intersectionality have emerged in criminal justice circles, justice system involvement per se has been given less attention in intersectionality theory and practice than other traits or circumstances such as gender identity, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, age, and socioeconomic status. However, those who are involved in the criminal legal system exemplify the intention of intersectionality work more than almost any other population. Even without considering other individual characteristics, having current and historical experiences as a justice-involved person brings immeasurable challenges and stigmatization. Trouble obtaining employment is one of the clearest and most referenced examples of discriminatory treatment. A recent survey by the RAND Corporation (2022) found the overall employment rate for men in their mid-30s was 6%, and of these unemployed men, nearly two-thirds (64%) had an arrest record, although many had not been convicted of a crime (46% of the arrested men had been convicted, with 27% having served time in custody). While limited education or lack of job-related skills presumably account in part for this striking unemployment statistic, one study showed that merely checking off the criminal record box on an online application resulted in 60% fewer call-backs from employers than for applicants who did not check the box (Agan & Starr, 2017). This result occurred despite the relatively minor offense reported on the application in this study. Adding to the debilitating consequences of a criminal label are other marginalized identities and combinations thereof (e.g., being an unhoused veteran, a two-spirited Indigenous person, or Muslim-American man) that may provoke faulty assumptions and stereotypical judgments, making it exponentially more difficult for certain groups of people to disconnect from the system. Highly publicized and horrifying instances of excessive brutality toward members of racial minorities, including murder, have amplified demands for law enforcement and correctional agencies to proactively dismantle the systems that perpetuate racism and strive for actual justice and rehabilitation within the communities they serve. For this reason, racial and ethnic disparities across stages of legal involvement (arrest, sentencing, 48 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 3 INFORMATION PROCESSING MATTERS community release) have received the most attention (Barnes et al., 2015;Huebner & Bynum, 2008; Kim et al., 2015; Kutateladze et al., 2014; Wooldredge et al., 2015). Although more American adults on probation and parole are White compared to other racial or ethnic groups (Oudekerk & Kaeble, 2021), some research suggests people of color, particularly Black and Brown individuals, have differential experiences under community supervision. In Kimchi (2019), for example, Black people who were younger and/or had drug-related offenses received more restrictive and a wider range of probation conditions than their White counterparts. Another study found Black people on probation were nearly twice as likely to have anger management treatment mandated as White probationers even when controlling for offense type (Bailey et al., 2020). For justice-involved people, however, race and ethnicity are just one cogwheel within a larger network of intersectional gears. Those on community supervision are also more likely to live in poverty (see Finkel, 2019), have less education (Harlow, 2003), and have a mental illness (Prins & Draper, 2009) than the general population. Unfortunately, courts and community supervision departments may perpetuate disparities, knowingly or not, through policy and punishment decisions such as criminalizing failure to pay fees or having behavioral manifestations of psychiatric symptoms. Perhaps unsurprisingly, probationers with more privileged backgrounds (e.g., those racialized as White, having higher socioeconomic status, and/or living in wealthier neighborhoods) and no history of mental illness typically have an easier time completing terms of their supervision (Phelps, 2018; Prins & Draper, 2009). Justice-involved women in general may have particular difficulty disengaging from the system compared to men due to intersectional vulnerabilities such as economic disadvantage, racism, and sexism (Wesley & Dewey, 2018). Avoidance of or desistance from the system is likely compounded for transgender or gender non-conforming individuals. A recent study of Black transwomen, for example, found a significant link between prior anti-trans school experiences (e.g., anti-trans victimization, denial of enrollment) and legal outcomes including police mistreatment and incarceration (Rosentel et al., 2020). Addressing Issues of Intersectionality in Practice Risk Assessment and Management Services The most widely researched and applied model for structuring correctional interventions is the Risk-Need- Responsivity model (RNR; see Bonta & Andrews, 2017). According to this model, interventions will be most effective when: (a) service intensity is based on the results of a validated re-offense risk instrument (e.g., Level of Service/Case Management Inventory; Andrews et al., 2004) so that people who are identified as higher risk receive higher dosages of treatment; (b) the changeable risk factors (i.e., criminogenic needs) identified through this assessment process become specific targets of treatment (e.g., reduce criminal cognitions, find employment, create prosocial support systems, achieve substance use sobriety); and (c) individual factors that may impact understanding of, engagement in, or access to treatment content (e.g., treatment readiness, learning disability, mental illness) are considered. These three components are respectively known as the risk, need, and responsivity principles. Notably, while probation departments often do a good job assessing risk, case management plans tend to reflect poor adherence to RNR (Campbell et al., 2015; Dyck et al., 2018). Thus, there appears to be a foundational need for departments to critically examine whether their current practices appropriately follow this model. In conducting such an internal investigation, we encourage community supervision departments to consider how intersectionality may be integrated into each of these principles. We provide a non-exhaustive discussion of considerations next. Assessment of Risk and Needs Assessing an individual’s risk level and needs (translating into treatment dosage and target determinations) is one of the first points of contact where supervision providers can apply an intersectionality lens. Accounting for and exploring supervisees’ experiences of discrimination at this stage can inform management recommendations. At a minimum, community corrections staff should be aware of what diversity factors are and are not relevant to reducing re-offense risk. Cultural bias in 49 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INFORMATION PROCESSING MATTERS risk assessment and interpretation tends to focus on race and ethnicity, neither of which is predictive of criminal behavior (Piquero & Brame, 2008). However, several factors included in risk tools may reflect systemic racial and ethnic disparities (Desmarais et al., 2020; Vincent & Viljoen, 2020). For example, Black men may be more likely to report prior contacts with the legal system and items related to unemployment, unstable housing, or limited educational opportunities than White men or Black women. Thus, Black men may score as higher risk for reoffending not because they are Black men but because of discriminatory policing, racist hiring practices, etc. It is incumbent on community corrections departments to select risk instruments with minimal predictive bias. Recent guidelines from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (Desmarais et al., 2022) may be useful. Despite the possibility of predictive bias, the use of well-researched risk tools generally leads to less biased correctional decisions than not using them (Desmarais et al., 2020; Lowder et al., 2021; Vincent & Viljoen, 2020). Therefore, we do not support disregarding or even de-emphasizing these tools. What is needed, however, is to ensure that case planning is enriched by incorporating questions that explicitly ask about the impact of marginalization and oppression on each static or dynamic risk factor included on the tool. Example follow-up questions include: “Tell me what it was like for you as a trans woman dealing with mental health issues while living on the streets?” or “Have you ever felt disadvantaged in obtaining a job as a Black man with a criminal record?” To guide these questions and maintain rapport, supervising officers or other staff administering these assessments will need to use a sensitive and accepting tone to obtain information about individuals’ identity composition and experiences. While the answers to these questions may not change the importance of criminogenic risk or need factors, they could have implications for program responsivity and/or how correctional staff interact with individuals under their supervision. For example, a risk tool may identify a Hispanic woman who grew up in poverty as having a moderate risk of recidivism due to past criminal convictions of felony drug possession with intent to sell and poor academic achievement. The risk tool is flagging important needs (e.g., a more prosocial means of earning money, more marketable educational or occupational skills) that would decrease her likelihood of continued criminal activity. Exploring the compounding intersectional challenges associated with her ethnicity, gender, or economic status is likely to improve trust between her and her supervising officer, better individualize case planning, and guide advocacy efforts to help break down systemic barriers to her successful completion of supervision. If intersectionality factors may be relevant to understanding a person’s risk level and needs as indicated by an empirically validated tool, the extent to which these factors are relevant and the supporting rationale should be detailed in any reports or other documentation. In addition to supplemental questions on specific re-offense risk tools, front-end assessments may include valid and reliable self-report measures of trauma (including racial trauma), adverse childhood experiences, identity development, and experiences of marginalization. Although community corrections staff should review any recommendations by measurement developers prior to use, many of the following scales are non-proprietary and easily accessible, and they do not require extensive clinical training: the Gender Minority Stress and Resilience Measure (GMSR; Testa et al., 2015), Ableist Microaggressions Scale (AMS; Conover et al., 2017), the Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS; Nadal, 2011), the Trauma Symptoms of Discrimination Scale (TSDS; Williams et al., 2018), and the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5; Blevins et al., 2015). Conducting a more comprehensive assessment early in a supervisee’s term and reviewing results therapeutically (Finn et al., 2012) may increase willingness to engage in services and provide insight into which factors are within their ability to change. Treatment Delivery As with assessment, community corrections staff should be cautious not to tip the intervention scale in favor of non-criminogenic targets, including intersectionality factors. Regardless of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, cognitive-behavioral and social skills programs that primarily emphasize criminogenic needs are most efficacious for reducing future offending (Gannon et al., 2019; Mpofu et al., Next >