1. Anti-social or pro-criminal attitudes, values, beliefs and cognitive-emotional states.
2. Pro-criminal associates and isolation from anti-criminal others.
3. Temperamental and personality factors conducive to criminal activity including psycopathy, weak socialization, impulsivity, restless aggressive energy, egocentricism, below average intelligence, a taste for risk, and weak problem-solving/self-regulation skills.
4. A history of anti-social behavior, evident from a young age, in a variety of settings, and involving a number and variety of different acts.
5. Familial factors that involve criminality and a variety of psychological problems in the family of origin, and in particular, low levels of affection, caring and cohesiveness, poor parental supervision and discipline practices, and outright neglect and abuse.
6. Low levels of educational, vocational, and financial achievement, and, in particular, an unstable employment record.

The minor set includes:

1. Lower class origins as assessed by adverse neighborhood conditions and/or parental educational/vocational/economic achievement.
2. Personal distress whether assessed by way of the sociological constructs of anomic, strain and alienation, or by way of the clinical psychological constructs of low self-esteem, anxiety, depression, worry or officially labeled ‘mental disorder’.
3. A host of biological/neuropsychological indicators that have yet to be integrated in a convincing manner by way of either theory or the construction of practical risk/need assessment instruments (Andrews 1995:37-38).

Studies have also been conducted to test the effectiveness of treatment on reducing recidivism. The logic is that if treatment changes the occurrence of certain dynamic (changeable) factors, for example, pro-criminal beliefs, and that factor is criminogenic, there would also be a reduction in future criminal behavior. By reverse logic, changes in factors that are not criminogenic would not have an impact in lowering an individual’s criminal behavior although it may have other positive effects for the individual. These non-criminogenic factors may co-occur with criminal behavior with great frequency, but changing them does not significantly reduce future criminal behavior. Sometimes, because of the high correlation of a factor with criminal behavior in an individual, it is easy to assume that one causes the other. Cause, however, cannot be determined by the co-occurrence of conditions or behaviors. Empirical studies of recidivism, however, can give us some indication of the factors that could have a more causal influence on criminal behavior.

The data from a recent meta-analysis conducted by Dowden (1998) shows an insignificant correlation of substance abuse treatment to reductions in recidivism; (0.03) as compared to correlations of 0.33 with programs that focus on teaching methods of self control, 0.32 with anger and negative affect, and 0.29 for those that target anti-social beliefs and attitudes. This led the author to conclude that substance abuse treatment tends to be associated with weak positive effects on recidivism. From these data it seems logical to question if substance use or abuse has a causal effect on criminal behavior.

Canada appears to have a long history of assuming that the use of psychoactive substances tends to cause human beings to commit a wide range of criminal acts. Our society and policy makers seem to believe that the use these substances, especially those that have been deemed illegal, will turn users into criminals. Statistics suggest, however, that for most users of illicit substances the only criminal act they commit is the possession and use of a substance that is prohibited. Creating laws that criminalize the use of certain drugs has made their users criminal when they would otherwise not be considered as such. This in turn has heightened the sense of a causal link between illicit drugs and crime. The development of corrections policy that focuses on preventing and ending substance use in prisoners has served to further link the two in the minds of many people, but the question remains: Is this link based on the evidence or on untested assumptions about the relationship between substance abuse and crime?