Brings together the developers of the most commonly-used risk/needs assessment tools to provide a comprehensive overview of their development, peer-reviewed research literature, and practical application.
"Provides comprehensive coverage on recidivism risk/needs assessment tools"--
Table of Contents
Notes on Contributors xv Preface: Recidivism Risk Assessment in the 21st Century xxiii John Monahan Part I Introduction 1 1 Performance of Recidivism Risk Assessment Instruments in U.S. Correctional Settings 3 Sarah L. Desmarais, Kiersten L. Johnson, and Jay P. Singh Characteristics of Risk Assessment Instruments 4 Characteristics of Samples and Studies 5 The Current Review 5 Method 6 Review Protocol 6 Search Strategy 6 Results 10 Characteristics and Content of Instruments 10 Sample and Study Characteristics 12 Performance of Recidivism Risk Assessment Instruments 14 Discussion 19 Limitations 21 Conclusions 21 Author Note 22 References 22 Supplemental Table 29 Part II Risk/Needs Assessment in North America 31 2 The CAIS/JAIS Approach to Assessment 33 Christopher Baird Introduction 33 History of Development 33 Development and Validation of Risk Assessment 35 Development of CAIS/JAIS Needs Assessment Instruments 38 Development, Synopsis, and Evaluation of CMC/SJS 39 Synopsis of CMC Supervision Strategies 41 CMC Evaluation Results 44 Current Issues and Future Directions 45 References 46 3 Correctional Offender Management Profiles for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) 49 Tim Brennan and William Dieterich Introduction 49 Purposes of COMPAS 49 Predictive Risk Assessment 49 Explanatory and Needs Assessment 50 Avoiding the Various Disconnects between Assessment, Treatment, and Outcomes 50 Different versions for Different Organizational Purposes and Target Populations 50 Methodological Goals 50 Background and History of Development 50 Incorporate Theoretical Guidance in Selecting Relevant Scales to Achieve a Comprehensive Coverage of Explanatory Factors 50 Incorporate Empirical Guidance from Meta-analytic Research on Predictive Factors 51 Incorporate the Strength/Resiliency Perspective 51 Incorporate Gender-Responsive Risk and Need Factors 51 Dynamic vs. Static Items in COMPAS Risk Assessments 51 Built-In Data Validity Tests and Error-Checking 51 Flexible Access to External "In-Depth" Diagnostic Assessments 51 Advanced Analytical Methods for Risk Prediction 52 Multiple Dependent Criterion Variables 52 Systematic Re-validation and Calibration to Accommodate Offender Population Changes 52 Ease of Use and Efficiency 52 Scalability-Agency Control Over Data Needs and Staff Workloads for Specific Processing Decisions 53 Integrated Database and Seamless Links from Risk/Needs Assessment to Case Management, Treatment Goals, Treatments Provided, and Outcomes 53 Generalizability of Predictive Accuracy Across Regions, Agencies, and Racial/Gender Categories 53 Versions of COMPAS 53 Youth COMPAS 53 Reentry COMPAS 54 Women's COMPAS 54 Norming or Standardization Samples 54 Settings for COMPAS Assessments (Pretrial, Community Corrections, Prison/Jail) 55 Web-based Implementation of Assessments and Subsequent Treatment and Outcome Data 55 Predictive and Needs/Explanatory Scales 55 Additional Risk Models for Other Criminal Justice Criterion Outcomes 56 Measures of Predictive Accuracy 56 Independent Validation Studies by External Researchers, from Diverse Geographical Areas 56 Follow-up Data and Time Frames 56 Internal Classification for Jails/Prisons for Offender Management and Responsivity 56 Theoretical Foundations of COMPAS 57 Social Learning Theory 57 The General Theory of Crime 57 Strain Theory/Social Marginalization 57 Routine Activities Theory 57 Social Disorganization/Sub-cultural Theories 58 Control/Restraint Theories 58 Data Collection and Interviewing 58 Official Records/File Review 58 Interview Section 58 Self-Report Paper and Pencil Section 59 Scoring Guidelines 59 Administrator Qualifications and Training Modules 59 Basic 2-day Training 59 Software Training 59 Train-the-Trainer Workshops 60 Anomaly or Error Detection 60 Coding Integrity Checks 60 Reliability Research 60 Internal Consistency Reliability 60 Test-Retest Reliability 61 Inter-rater Reliability 61 On-Screen Hyperlinks to Give Staff Immediate Access to Question Definitions 62 Systematic Identification, Removal, or Revision of Problematic Questions 62 Using Machine Learning (ML) Classifiers to Achieve High Reliability of Prison Classification Assignments 62 Latent Factor Structure of the Overall COMPAS Assessment Domain 62 1. Early Starter, High Violence Risks with Very Low Social Capital 63 2. Extent of Criminal Involvement 63 3. Social Marginalization 63 4. Violence 63 5. Antisocial Personality and Attitudes 63 6. Socialization and Social Learning in Antisocial Environments 63 7. Transience, Unstable Residence, Drugs, and Poor Social Adjustment 63 8. Antisocial High-Risk Lifestyle 63 Criterion Validity: Predictive and Concurrent Validity 64 Predictive Validity of COMPAS Has Been Replicated in Multiple Jurisdictions, Multiple Agencies, and by Different Research Teams 64 Predictive Validity Across Gender and Racial Groups (Criterion Related Validity) 64 Content Validity-Coverage of Relevant Factors 66 Meta-analytic Selection 67 Theory-based Selection 67 Predictive Validity of Specific COMPAS Subscales 67 Calibration 68 Discrimination and Dispersion 68 Construct Validity-Factorial, Concurrent, and Criterion Validity 69 Factorial Validity of COMPAS Subscales 69 Construct and Convergent Validity 69 Substance Abuse 70 COMPAS Subscale Correlates with Official Criminal Behaviors and Age of Onset 70 Criminal Attitudes and Criminal Personality Scales 70 Implementation Research 70 User Satisfaction 70 Impact Evaluation and Cost/Benefit Analyses of COMPAS 71 Current Issues and Future Directions 71 1. Data Analytic Advances 71 2. Advances in Automated Data Collection Procedures 72 3. Diverse Pathways to Crime and New Internal Classifications for Prisons 72 4. Advances in Decision Analytic Methods for Setting Cut Points in Risk Assessment Scales 72 References 72 4 The Federal Post-Conviction Risk Assessment Instrument: A Tool for Predicting Recidivism for Offenders on Federal Supervision 77 Thomas H. Cohen, Christopher T. Lowenkamp, and Charles Robinson Introduction 77 Overview of Risk Assessment Tools 79 History of Actuarial Instruments in the Federal Probation System 79 Development and Implementation of the Federal Post Conviction Risk Assessment Instrument 81 Administration and Scoring of the PCRA 82 Officer Section of the PCRA 82 Handling Scoring Omissions and Missing Data 83 Offender Section of the PCRA 84 Highlighting Addressable Criminogenic Needs 84 The Role of Supervision Overrides in the PCRA's Risk Assessment Mechanism 85 The PCRA Assessment and Reassessment Policy 85 Overview of Research Using the PCRA 86 Revalidation of the PCRA's Predictive Validity 86 Investigating the PCRA's Dynamic Characteristics 88 Studies Investigating the PCRA for Race/Gender Bias 92 Evaluating the Predictive Value of the PICTS Criminal Thinking Styles 92 The PCRA and Special Offender Populations 93 Studies Using the PCRA to Investigate Supervision Overrides, Implementation of the Low-Risk Policy, the Presence of Responsivity Issues, and Convergence of Long-Term Recidivism Rates Across Risk Levels 94 PCRA 2.0 and the Future of the PCRA 96 Conclusion 97 References 97 5 The Inventory of Offender Risk, Needs, and Strengths (IORNS) 101 Holly A. Miller Rationale and Development of the IORNS 102 Standardization 106 Reliability 106 Validity 107 Construct Validity 107 Internal Structure 109 Predictive Validity 109 Tracking Change through Treatment 110 Case Illustration 111 Utility and Future Directions of the IORNS 114 References 114 6 The Level of Service (LS) Instruments 117 J. Stephen Wormith and James Bonta The Origins and Evolution of the Level of Service (LS) Instruments 118 The Theoretical Underpinnings of the LS 119 Administration 121 Reliability 124 Validity 126 Current Issues, Concerns, and Future Directions 132 Summary and Conclusions 135 References 139 7 The Ohio Risk Assessment System 147 Edward J. Latessa, Brian Lovins, and Jennifer Lux Overview 147 Theoretical Framework 150 The Creation and Validation of the ORAS 150 Administering the ORAS 151 Training Requirements and Qualifications 152 The Validity of the Ohio Risk Assessment System 153 Ohio Validation 153 ORAS Pretrial Assessment Tool 153 ORAS Community Supervision Tool 153 Indiana Validation 154 Texas Validation 155 ORAS Prison Intake Tool 156 Ohio Risk Assessment System-Reentry and Supplemental Reentry Tools 157 The Reliability of the Ohio Risk Assessment System 158 Implementation Research 159 Use of the ORAS 160 Benefits of ORAS 160 Current Issues and Future Directions 161 References 162 8 Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ): A Tool for Assessing Violent and Non-Violent Recidivism 165 Wagdy Loza Development of the SAQ 165 Description of the SAQ Scales 166 Uses of the SAQ 166 Who Can Administer the SAQ? 166 Administering the SAQ 167 Scoring the SAQ 167 Interpreting the Score of the SAQ 168 Example of Reporting the Results of the SAQ 168 Training 168 Limitations of the SAQ 168 Studies Demonstrating the Psychometric Properties of the SAQ 169 Reliability of the SAQ 169 Subscale/Total Correlations 169 Construct Validity 170 Concurrent Validity 170 Predictive Validity 171 The Validity of the SAQ for Use with Female Offenders 173 SAQ as a Classification Measure 173 Comparison Studies with Other Instruments 173 The SAQ and Deception 173 Cultural Diversity Comparisons 174 Predictive Validity of the SAQ for Use with Mentally Ill Offenders 175 The Validity of the SAQ for Use with Young Offenders 175 Postgraduate Research Projects 175 Research Agenda 175 Conclusion 175 Case Study: High Risk 176 Reason for Referral: Intake Assessment 176 References177 9 Service Planning Instrument (SPIn) 181 Natalie J. Jones and David Robinson Overview 181 History and Development 182 Theoretical Foundations 184 Content and Measurement 185 Measurement of Strengths 186 Administration and Training 187 Psychometric Properties 187 Research Samples 187 Reliability Research 188 Predictive Validity Research 189 Discussion 194 References 196 10 The Static Risk Offender Needs Guide - Revised (STRONG-R) 199 Zachary Hamilton, Xiaohan Mei, and Douglas Routh Overview 199 Recidivism Prediction Spotlight 200 Item Types 202 Instrument Purpose(s) 203 Target Population and Setting 204 Time Frame of Prediction 204 Theoretical Framework 204 History of Development 205 The Static Risk Assessment 205 The Offender Needs Assessment 206 The STRONG-R 206 Subscale Construction 206 Methodological Advances 207 Customization and the STRONG-R 207 Criminogenic Need Domains 208 Administration and Training 209 Training at Implementation 209 Ongoing Training for Quality Assurance 211 Reliability and Validity Research 212 Latent Structure 212 Content Validity 214 Internal Consistency 215 Inter-rater Reliability 215 Convergent/Divergent Validity 218 Concurrent Validity 219 Predictive Validity 220 Implementation of the STRONG-R 221 Current Issues and Future Directions 222 Software Applications 222 Responsivity, Case Planning, and Management 223 Methods of Customization 224 References 225 Part III Risk/Needs Assessment Abroad 229 11 Offender Group Reconviction Scale 231 Philip Howard Overview 231 History of Development, and Key Differences between the Versions 231 The Copas Rate, and Unusual Changes in OGRS Score 232 The Introduction of Offence-free Time and Violence Prediction in OGRS4 233 Summary of Risk Factors Scored in Each Version 234 Operationalizing Recidivism and the Follow-up Period 234 Theoretical Framework 236 Administration 236 Reliability and Validity Research 237 Implementation in Correctional Practice 238 Current Issues and Future Directions 239 References 240 12 Forensic Operationalized Therapy/Risk Evaluation System (FOTRES) 243 Leonel C. Goncalves, Astrid Rossegger, and Jerome Endrass Overview 243 History of Development 243 Description of FOTRES and its Subscales 243 Review of FOTRES Versions 246 Theoretical Framework 247 Scope of Application 247 Risk Characteristics 247 Target Offense 247 Offense Mechanism Hypothesis 247 Administration 248 Validity and Reliability Research 249 Implementation Research 250 Case Studies 251 Current Issues and Future Directions 251 References 252 13 The RisCanvi: A New Tool for Assessing Risk for Violence in Prison and Recidivism 255 Antonio Andres-Pueyo, Karin Arbach-Lucioni, and Santiago Redondo Introduction 255 A Brief Overview of the Catalan Correctional System 255 The RisCanvi: A New Tool for Risk Assessment of Prison Recidivism 256 The RisCanvi: Structure and Some Psychometric Properties 258 Using the RisCanvi in Practice 264 Conclusions 266 Acknowledgments 267 References 267 Part IV Conclusion 269 14 Risk Assessment: Where Do We Go From Here? 271 Faye S. Taxman What Are Major Issues Affecting the Development and Evaluation of Risk Assessment Tools? 272 Do Risk Assessment Tools Accurately Identify the Probability of Recidivism (Predictive Validity)? 273 Do the Risk Assessment Instruments Differentiate Between Those in the Justice System and Those That Are not in the Justice System? 275 Are the Methods to Score Items and Categorize Risk Appropriate? 275 Are Instruments Neutral on Race, Gender, and Other Key Demographic Issues? 277 Do the Domains on the Risk Assessment Instruments Have Construct and Content Validity? 278 How to Implement Risk Assessment Instruments so They Are Useful in Practice Including Case Planning, Resource Allocation, Treatment Referral or Placement, and Clinical Progress? 280 Conclusion 281 References 282 Appendix 285 Index 305