Taxman and Caudy (2015, this issue) argue for the utility of basing correctional interventions on individual need profiles as opposed to levels of reoffending risk and lists of risk dynamic factors. Although they acknowledge the value of the risk‐ need‐responsivity (RNR) framework in guiding offender classification and subsequent correctional interventions, the inability of the RNR model to bridge the theory-practice gap is recognized as a major weakness. The problem is that offenders vary in terms of their psychological and social problems, and this variability is often overlooked by correctional jurisdictions that use the RNR to construct policy and programs for offenders. In other words, the RNR is too blunt an instrument to reflect adequately the real-world experiences and treatment needs of individual offenders—treatment needs that span both programs and case management. Taxman and Caudy’s (2015) response to the problem of offender need heterogeneity is to search for clusters of dynamic risk factors they label “criminogenic needs” and “lifestyle destabilizers.” They believe that the best way to reduce recidivism rates is by developing a more fine-grained understanding of risk profiles and to use the subsequent grouping of offenders to determine the type and duration of intervention packages. To achieve this end, latent class analysis (LCA) was used to detect groups of offenders (from a sample of 17,252 offenders on probation) with similar clusters of needs and lifestyle destabilizers using a risk-assessment scale and measures of 11 classes of dynamic risk factors, including substance abuse, low self-control, antisocial peers, antisocial values, employment education, and family support. The employment of this statistical technique resulted in four groups: class 1—moderate needs with high destabilizers, class 2—low need with few destabilizers,