Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:45 am
Time: 1:45 am
Results for risk assessment instruments
3 results foundAuthor: Huebner, Beth Title: Sex Offender Risk Assessment Summary: Compared to clinical methods, actuarial risk instruments are a preferred method to discern sex offenders risk for sexual as well as violent recidivism because, unlike clinical practices, they are considered inexpensive, objective and modestly accurate. Scientists argue that risk instruments that employ only static, or historic measures of offender characteristics, rather than dynamic, are certainly sufficient for the purposes of gauging individuals’ likelihood of recidivism. In fact, Harris and Rice (2003:207) contend that dynamic constructs are “unnecessary for anticipating who will recidivate in a given time period”; furthermore they state that “very accurate statements about the likelihood of another…offense can be based upon knowledge of an individual’s lifetime conduct.” In their view, offender risk scales that incorporate only static information are essentially capturing factors that reflect a person’s underlying antisocial propensity. Although there are a considerable number of risk instruments available for corrections officials to utilize, far fewer have been rigorously evaluated. Of those that have, Harris and Rice (2003) recommend that the MnSOST-R and the Static-99 are two of the most “promising” scales for predicting sexual recidivism. An emerging body of work also suggests that the SORAG is quite effectual in terms of its predictive accuracy. Additional empirical research is likely to surface which will provide further evidence of the statistical accuracy of sex offender risk instruments. Details: Columbia, MO: Institute of Public Policy, Truman School of Public Affairs, University of Missouri – Columbia, 2006. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 10, 2013 at: http://www.mosac.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=45355 Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.mosac.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=45355 Shelf Number: 129613 Keywords: RecidivismRisk Assessment InstrumentsSex Offenders (Missouri, U.S.) |
Author: Baird, Chris Title: A Comparison of Risk Assessment Instruments in Juvenile Justice Summary: Juvenile justice service staff began exploring the use of actuarial risk assessments that classify offenders by the likelihood of future delinquency with earnest in the 1970s, but actuarial risk assessments have been used by public social service agencies in the United States since 1928. The value and utility of a valid, reliable, and equitable risk assessment within a broader practice reform effort was made clear to justice agencies in 1998 when the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) published the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. OJJDP's reform effort illustrated how juvenile justice agencies could better ensure the effectiveness and appropriate targeting of services by implementing both an actuarial risk assessment to accurately, reliably, and equitably classify youth by the likelihood of future delinquency and an equally effective needs assessment to identify an intervention and treatment plan tailored to an individual's needs. This approach built upon the efforts of the National Institute of Corrections' Model Probation/Parole Management Project that combined actuarial risk assessment, individual needs assessment for effective treatment planning, regular reassessments of risk and needs and risk-based supervision standards, and workload-based budgeting. Other models of risk assessment were introduced over subsequent decades, and researchers began categorizing and comparing them as generations of risk assessments. The first generation of risk assessments were not actuarial- individual workers assigned risk levels without the aid of actuarial instruments. Generation 2 instruments were statistically derived, but relied heavily on static criminal history factors to assess risk. They tended to be developed using local data for specific jurisdictions, typically consisted of fewer than a dozen factors (e.g., the California Base Expectancy Tables developed in the 1960s), and focused on identifying groups of offenders with distinctly different risks of future offending. Many of today's instruments, often referred to as generation 3 or generation 4, have expanded beyond the singular objective of risk assessment to classify individuals by risk of delinquency. These instruments often contain dozens of factors (for example, the Correctional Offender Management Profiling and Alternative Sanctions [COMPAS] Youth risk assessment instrument). They frequently divide risk factors into two groups: "static" and "dynamic" (see, for example, Schwalbe, 2008; Hoge, 2002). Static factors are generally measures of prior delinquency. Dynamic factors are commonly referred to as "criminogenic needs" and represent conditions or circumstances that can improve over time (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2006). In addition, protective factors and references to "responsivity" have been added to generation 4 instruments. Responsivity is intended to reflect an individual's readiness for change and gauge a youth's ability to respond to particular treatment methods and programs (Andrews, 1990). Generation 4 instruments contain anywhere from 42 to approximately 150 factors. These variations in methodology and philosophy raised questions about which types of instruments most accurately and effectively help jurisdictions differentiate between low-, moderate-, and high-risk youth. Many evaluations of risk assessments based validity on correlation coefficients or other measures of association. Those that examined the degree of difference in recidivism rates observed for youth identified as low, moderate, or high risk often found little differentiation; results could vary substantially by race, ethnicity, and gender. Few jurisdictions conducted local validation studies to ensure a risk assessment's validity and reliability, and now one foundation-funded reform effort is telling agencies that local validation is not required if an instrument has been validated in three agencies or for similar populations. Perhaps the most significant change in the last few decades has been the emergence of commercially available risk assessment systems. Prior to this development, risk assessment studies were generally conducted by universities, nonprofit research organizations, or research units within government agencies. Claims made about the validity and reliability of some of these tools have been challenged by other researchers (Skeem & Eno Louden, 2007; Baird, 2009). In response to concerns about the classification and predictive validity of several risk assessments voiced by juvenile justice practitioners and researchers, OJJDP funded a proposal submitted by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) to evaluate commonly used risk assessments by comparing their predictive validity, reliability, equity, and cost. NCCD is a nonprofit social research organization, and its researchers conducted the study of eight risk assessments in 10 jurisdictions in consultation with an advisory board of juvenile justice researchers and developers of commercial juvenile justice risk assessment systems included in the study. Details: Oakland, CA(?): National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2013. 541p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2014 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/244477.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/244477.pdf Shelf Number: 132109 Keywords: ClassificationJuvenile Justice SystemsPredictionRecidivismReoffendingRisk Assessment Instruments |
Author: Meredith, Tammy Title: Ramsey County Proxy Tool Norming & Validation Results Summary: A Ramsey County (St. Paul, Minnesota) work team consisting of the Sheriff, City District Attorney, local pretrial services and the Center for Effective Public Policy in collaboration with Applied Research Services (ARS) conducted a Proxy assessment norming and validation study with support from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC). The Proxy is three-question screening instrument used to triage community corrections populations for the purpose of moving those at low risk to minimum supervision without further assessment. The Ramsey County team identified a random sample of 200 misdemeanor cases processed through the city court in 2008 and determined who was subsequently re-arrested in a three-year follow up period. A data collection form was completed on each case by the City District Attorney staff and warrants clerks at the Sheriff's Office (see appendix). That data collection effort relied upon a file review followed by an official criminal history inquiry to answer demographic, offense and criminal history questions, to include the three Proxy assessment questions. The Proxy norming and validation followed the recommended steps of Bogue, Woodward and Joplin (2006). Results indicate that the Proxy as currently scored identifies half of the sample as low risk and does not perform better than chance at predicting re-arrest for those low risk offenders. The normed reclassification allows for more efficient distribution of resources and improved prediction of re-arrest. Details: Atlanta, GA: Applied Research Services, Inc., 2014. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 9, 2014 at https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/028095.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/028095.pdf Shelf Number: 132424 Keywords: Community CorrectionsRecidivismRisk AssessmentRisk Assessment Instruments |