Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:03 am
Time: 1:03 am
Results for classification of offenders
6 results foundAuthor: Yang, Min Title: Applying Neural Networks and Other Statistical Models to the Classification of Serious Offenders and the Prediction of Recidivism Summary: This methodological study aims primarily to explore the applicability of data mining techniques, including Neural Networks and Classification Tree models, in predicting the risk of violent recidivism, together with their predictive validity in comparison with conventional logistic regression. Its aim is to lead to the development of better risk assessment. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2010. 31p. Source: Ministry of Justice Research Series 6/10 Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 117796 Keywords: Classification of OffendersRecidivismRisk Assessment |
Author: Barnoski, Robert Title: Washington's Offender Accountability Act: Department of Corrections' Static Risk Instrument Summary: The 1999 Offender Accountability Act (OAA) affects how the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) supervises convicted felony offenders in the community. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Institute) was directed by the Legislature to evaluate the OAA. The OAA requires DOC to supervise felony offenders according to their risk for future offending. Risk for future offending is estimated using instruments that classify offenders into groups with similar characteristics. Criminal behavior is difficult to predict; even the most accurate instruments, like this one, cannot predict with absolute certainty who will subsequently reoffend. In our 2003 report, the Institute evaluated the validity of DOC’s risk assessment tool and found that the tool could be strengthened by including more information about an offender’s prior record of convictions. Subsequently, DOC asked the Institute to develop a new “static risk” instrument based on offender demographics and criminal history because of the following advantages: Increased predictive accuracy; Prediction of three types of high risk offenders: drug, property, and violent; Increased objectivity; Decreased time to complete the assessment; and Accurate recording of criminal history for use in other DOC reporting requirements. This report describes our evaluation of the validity of the static risk instrument developed for DOC. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2007. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2010 at: http://www.asca.net/documents/07-03-1201-WSIPPStaticRisk.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.asca.net/documents/07-03-1201-WSIPPStaticRisk.pdf Shelf Number: 114887 Keywords: Classification of OffendersFelony OffendersRecidivismRisk Assessment |
Author: Pew Center on the States Title: Risk/Needs Assessment 101: Science Reveals New Tools to Manage Offenders Summary: Over the past few decades, experts have developed and refined risk/needs instruments to measure the likelihood of an individual returning to crime, violence or drug use. These tools can help officials to better identify offenders at a high risk of reoffending, while also pinpointing the types of supervision and services that are most likely to prevent future criminal behavior and slow the revolving door of America’s prisons. Key Findings: • Risk/needs instruments measure an individual’s risk of reoffending and identify the specific risk factors that, if addressed, can reduce the likelihood of future criminal behavior. • Risk/needs assessment tools are used at many points in the corrections process by courts, probation and parole agencies, prison and jail systems and parole boards to inform decisions about offender management. • Differentiating offenders by risk level is important—intensive programming can work well with higher-risk offenders but can actually increase recidivism rates among lower-risk offenders. • Research has shown that a comprehensive evidence-based approach—assessing risk, matching supervision and treatment to an offender’s risk level and targeting criminal risk factors with proven programs—reduces recidivism. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States, 2011. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Brief: Accessed November 1, 2011 at: http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Pew_Risk_Assessment_brief.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Pew_Risk_Assessment_brief.pdf Shelf Number: 123198 Keywords: Classification of OffendersNeeds AssessmentOffender ManagementPrisonersRisk Assessment |
Author: de Andrade, Dominique Title: Classifying Queensland Incarcerated Sexual Offenders Summary: There are numerous explanations about the most accurate and effective way in which to classify sexual offenders. Typologies of sexual offenders may be based on offender or victim characteristics, situational characteristics or a combination of these (Bickley & Beech, 2001). These factors can also be combined to classify the offender according to characteristics such as the severity of the offending which might be based on an assessment of the age of the offender at first offence, the age of the victim as well as the level of violence involved. This report outlines traditional sex offender typologies often discussed in empirical research literature. Following this, a sample of 173 sex offenders incarcerated in Queensland as at 18 January 2012 have been grouped via a statistical cluster analysis. This grouping process is based on offender information gathered on the Integrated Offender Management System (IOMS), and detailed contextual information on the event(s) and the victim from court sentencing transcripts. Essentially, the analysis aims to develop a typology of the Queensland sex offender population and compare it to the traditional typologies. This comparison will identify any sex offender groups unique to the Queensland incarcerated sex offender population. Furthermore, findings will allow for the development of an operational tool that can be used at prison reception to manage sex offenders and sex offender programs more efficiently. Details: Brisbane: Queensland Corrective Services, 2013. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report No. 5: Accessed July 3, 2013 at: http://www.correctiveservices.qld.gov.au/Publications/Research_Publications/Research_Report_%20No_5_Classifying_Sexual_Offenders.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.correctiveservices.qld.gov.au/Publications/Research_Publications/Research_Report_%20No_5_Classifying_Sexual_Offenders.pdf Shelf Number: 129252 Keywords: Classification of OffendersSex Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Gobeil, Renee Title: Use of the Custody Rating Scale with Male Offenders Summary: Periodic revalidations of instruments used in assessing and classifying offenders are necessary given that offender populations can change over time. It is important to ensure that instruments continue to be valid and to measure what they purport to measure despite changes in the populations to which they are applied. This is particularly true for instruments used in security classification as this classification impacts penitentiary placement and can influence access to programs and interventions, as well as conditional release decisions. In determining offenders' initial security classification, CSC uses the Custody Rating Scale (CRS), which measures offenders' institutional adjustment and security risk. The CRS is a 12- item empirically-derived actuarial instrument that provides a security classification recommendation which is then considered together with the clinical judgment of experienced and specialized professional staff and, in some cases, psychological assessment. Given changes in the offender population since the CRS's development, a revalidation was undertaken. The study was limited to male offenders and included a total of 11,438 CRSs completed between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009. Analyses demonstrated that the CRS continues to be appropriate for use in the determination of initial security classifications. Offenders receiving higher CRS security classification recommendations tended to be higher risk and less well adjusted than their counterparts receiving lower recommendations. CRS recommendations were consistent with ratings on measures of risk, need, motivation, reintegration potential, and, for non-Aboriginal offenders, scores on a measure of the likelihood of recidivism. CRS recommendations were also predictive of involvement in minor and major institutional incidents, conviction of serious institutional charges, and the granting of discretionary release (used as a measure of manageability of risk). Though slightly higher proportions of Aboriginal offenders than of non-Aboriginal offenders received higher CRS security classification recommendations, the CRS was able to predict involvement in serious institutional misbehaviours and the granting of discretionary release at comparable rates for offenders of each ethnicity. This pattern suggests that the difference in security classification recommendation distributions for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders reflect underlying differences in risk rather than over-classification. Results were therefore supportive of the continued use of the CRS with Aboriginal offenders. Finally, whether domains not included in the CRS are also useful predictors of institutional adjustment and security risk was examined. Measures of antisocial attitudes and antisocial associates were found to be related to involvement in institutional misbehaviour. Relationships were sufficiently strong to indicate that if and when modifications are made to the current security classification approach, there may be value in considering the inclusion of measures of antisocial attitudes and antisocial attitudes, as well, perhaps, as other measures. Details: Ottawa; Correctional Service of Canada, 2014. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report No. R-257: Accessed October 2, 2014 at: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cn21484-eng.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Canada URL: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cn21484-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 133548 Keywords: Classification of OffendersMale Offenders (Canada)MalesRisk-Assessment Instruments |
Author: Bellmore, Aimee Ryan Title: Gender, Culture, and Prison Classification: Testing the Reliability and Validity of a Prison Classification System Summary: Research consistently shows actuarial classification instruments have equal or higher predictive validity than clinical judgment and can lead to more ethical and fair treatment of incarcerated men and women (Austin, 1983, 1986; Bonta, 2002; Clements, 1981; Holsigner, Lowenkamp, & Latessa, 2006; Meehl, 1954; Salisbury, Van Voorhis, & Spiropoulos, 2009). Best correctional practice recommends all objective classification systems are tested for reliability and validity to ensure they are effective for the population they intend to serve (Austin, 1986; Holsinger et al., 2006; Salisbury et al., 2009). This study examined the reliability and validity of the classification and assessment instruments currently used by Golden Grove Adult Correctional Facility (Golden Grove), located on St. Croix in the United States Virgin Islands (USVI). Golden Grove is a mixed-gender, mixed-security status prison managed by the USVI territorial government, and is subject to United States Federal laws and mandates. Data from archival files were used to assess the internal reliability, construct validity, and predictive validity of the classification and assessment instruments used with incarcerated men and women at Golden Grove (N = 200). Primary objectives of this study were separated into four main categories: 1) examine the construct validity of Golden Grove's custody assessment tools; 2) investigate the predictive validity of Golden Grove's custody assessment tools across gender; 3) determine reliability and assess to what extent the primary classification officer's decisions have higher predictive validity than the actuarial tool; and 4) investigate the relationship between items on the needs assessment form and level of custody (minimum, medium, or maximum). Results were mixed but generally indicated weak reliability, construct validity, and predictive validity. Contrary to most research on gender and classification, a significant correlation between the initial custody score for incarcerated females and disciplinary reports (r = .26, n = 56, p < .05) indicated the initial custody tool predicted misconduct for maximum custody females better than for males. The mean number of disciplinary reports for maximum women (M = 1.12) was significantly higher compared to maximum men (M = .46). The classification officer overrode the instrument at a high rate for both the initial assessment instrument (44%) and the reassessment instrument (36.4%) rendering the objective assessment overly subjective. Overall, findings show the classification system at Golden Grove is not functioning as intended and improvements are recommended. Details: Portland, OR: Portland State University, 2011. 144p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed May 19, 2017 at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1422&context=open_access_etds Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1422&context=open_access_etds Shelf Number: 145570 Keywords: Classification of OffendersFemale InmatesInmate ClassificationPrisoner Classification |