Handbook of Recidivism Risk / Needs Assessment Tools

ISBN-13: 9781119184294 / Angielski / Miękka / 2018 / 344 str.

Jay P. Singh

Opis

Provides comprehensive coverage on recidivism risk/needs assessment tools Correctional and healthcare professionals around the world utilize structured instruments referred to as risk/needs assessment tools to predict the likelihood that an offender will recidivate.

Spis treści

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. Gonçalves, Astrid Rossegger, and Jérôme 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 Andrés–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

O autorze

JAY P. SINGH, PhD, PhD, is the Founder of the Global Institute of Forensic Research and is affiliated with the Department of Psychiatry and the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania.

DARYL G. KRONER, PhD, is a Professor at Southern Illinois University and reviewed the effectiveness of offender programs at the Illinois Department of Corrections.

J. STEPHEN WORMITH, PhD, is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Saskatchewan, and Director of the Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science and Justice Studies.

SARAH L. DESMARAIS, PhD, is an Associate Professor and Coordinator of the Applied Social and Community Psychology Program at North Carolina State University.

ZACHARY HAMILTON, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology and the Director of the Washington State Institute for Criminal Justice at Washington State University.

Blurb

Provides comprehensive coverage on Recidivism Risk/Needs Assessment Tools

Correctional and healthcare professionals around the world utilize structured instruments referred to as risk/needs assessment tools to predict the likelihood that an offender will recidivate. Such tools have been found to provide accurate and reliable evaluations and are widely used to assess, manage, and monitor offenders both institutionally as well as in the community. By identifying offenders in need of different levels of intervention, examining causal risk factors, and individualizing case management plans, risk/needs assessment tools have proven invaluable in addressing the public health issue of recidivism. Handbook of Recidivism Risk/Needs Assessment Tools 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.

With contributions from leading professionals in the field of risk/needs assessment, the book provides chapters on: Recidivism Risk Assessment in the 21st Century; Performance of Recidivism Risk Assessment Instruments in Correctional Settings; Correctional Offender Management Profiles for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS); the Federal Post–Conviction Risk Assessment Instrument; the Inventory of Offender Risks, Needs, and Strengths (IORNS); the Level of Service (LS) Instruments; the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS); the Self–Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ); the Service Planning Instrument (SPIn); the Static Risk Offender Needs Guide–Revised (STRONG–R); the Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS); the Forensic Operationalized Therapy/Risk Evaluation System (FOTRES); the RisCanvi; and more.

• Systematically identifies currently validated recidivism risk/needs assessment tools
• Reviews research on recidivism risk/needs assessment tools used internationally
• Each chapter presents sufficient detail to decide whether a given recidivism risk/needs assessment tool is right for your practice

The Handbook of Recidivism Risk/Needs Assessment Tools is ideal for correctional, probation and parole, and behavioral health professionals.