Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:03 am
Time: 12:03 am
Results for prisoner classification
3 results foundAuthor: Eisenberg, Mike Title: Validation of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections Risk Assessment Instrument Summary: Probation and parole agencies across the country use risk assessment instruments to predict the likelihood that individuals under supervision will reoffend. Like other departments across the nation, the Division of Community Corrections of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections requires that the "Admission to Adult Field Caseload" risk classification instrument be completed for all felony and assaultive misdemeanor cases at the time an offender is admitted to field supervision. This instrument, commonly referred to as the DOC 502, is used not only to estimate risk probabilities for supervision purposes, but also to help determine staff workload and deployment. The DOC 502 risk assessment instrument was last validated in 1984 and department officials have sought to examine the validity of their risk instrument on a more contemporaneous population. To address the need for revalidation, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections contracted with the Council of State Governments Justice Center to conduct a validation study of the DOC 502 risk assessment instrument. This report reviews general issues associated with the use of risk assessment instruments in classifying offenders and presents the results of a validation study of the DOC 502 risk assessment instrument. Validity of risk assessment instruments is the most important supportive principle behind the proper utilization of these instruments. Namely, the instruments' predictions must be supported by research showing it can identify different groups of offenders with different probabilities of reoffending. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2009. 56p. Source: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/WIRiskValidationFinalJuly2009.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/WIRiskValidationFinalJuly2009.pdf Shelf Number: 116250 Keywords: CorrectionsPrisoner ClassificationRecidivismRisk Assessment |
Author: Hanson, R. Karl Title: A Five-Level Risk and Needs System: Maximizing Assessment Results in Corrections through the Development of a Common Language Summary: Risk and needs assessments are now routinely used in correctional systems in the United States to estimate a person's likelihood of recidivism and provide direction concerning appropriate correctional interventions. Specifically, they inform sentencing, determine the need for and nature of rehabilitation programs, inform decisions concerning conditional release, and allow community supervision officers to tailor conditions to a person's specific strengths, skill deficits, and reintegration challenges. In short, risk and needs assessments provide a roadmap for effective correctional rehabilitation initiatives. When properly understood and implemented, they can help correctional organizations to provide the types and dosages of services that are empirically related to reductions in reoffending. Despite considerable advances in risk and needs assessment, however, the widespread use of a variety of risk and needs assessment instruments has created new challenges. Foremost, how do we compare the results of assessments conducted with different instruments? Although all of these instruments are trying to measure risk and needs, each instrument is unique in that it may comprise varying factors and weight those factors differently from other instruments. Furthermore, the field has not set standards or specifications about the terminology used to describe risk and needs categories across all of these instruments. Although some risk and needs instruments use three nominal risk and needs categories (low, moderate, high), others use four nominal categories (low, low-moderate, moderate-high, high), and still others use five (low, low-moderate, moderate, moderate-high, high). Some instruments use different terms entirely (e.g., poor, fair, good, very good). Complicating matters further, there are no standard definitions of these nominal risk and needs categories, so "low risk," for example, might have different definitions from one instrument to the next. As such, the field of assessment and risk research struggles with perhaps its most significant obstacle: the absence of a precise, standardized language to communicate about risk. To further illustrate this problem, researchers compared risk-level definitions among five assessment measures and found that only 3 percent of the people assessed were identified as high risk across all five instruments and only 4 percent of the people were identified as low risk by all five measures. This means that the same person can be described by different categories across different assessment instruments, or people in the same category can be described differently across different assessment instruments. Beyond the lack of standard definitions of risk and needs categories, there is no consensus about what various labels mean with regard to the probability of reoffending or the specific profile of needs in each risk level. This lack of consensus occurs not just across different instruments, but also across and within jurisdictions that use the same instrument but in different ways. Details: New York: Justice Center, Council of State Governments, 2017. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 30, 2017 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/A-Five-Level-Risk-and-Needs-System_Report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/A-Five-Level-Risk-and-Needs-System_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 144876 Keywords: Prisoner ClassificationRisk and Needs AssessmentRisk Assessment |
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 |