Risk Assessment in Community Corrections
Learn about us, our work, and what our future looks like. Watch video.
Risk assessment in Community Corrections tools should be used as a tool to identify high risk offenders and to assist in determining the most appropriate level of supervision.
Use risk assessment tools to identify high risk offenders and to determine the most appropriate level of supervision. In the past, if a person committed a crime and was sentenced to prison, they were placed in general population. The prison had a range of programs, but it was not considered appropriate to place a violent offender in a program with non-violent offenders. They were placed in general population and treated as such. In the last few years, research has shown that the majority of people who enter prison are not highly dangerous. They will eventually be released back into the community. However, research also shows that even low-risk offenders have a high likelihood of re-offending. Therefore, it is important to use something to identify those offenders who are most likely to re-offend.
Custom, Pre-Built, and Configurable interfaces that work the way you want them to.
Risk assessment tools have been developed that are used by correctional systems around the world to determine the risk of an offender re-offending and to help determine what level of supervision is needed for those offenders. These tools can be used as part of a pre-sentence report or probation decision making process. A risk assessment tool is used by a professional trained in using the tool – usually a mental health professional or social worker – to assess an offender and determine their level of risk for re-offending based on evidence. There are many different risk assessment tools available and they all have different levels of accuracy, but they do not need to be perfect in order for them to be used effectively (Bayley & Banks, 2009). The key is that they should be used consistently and accurately – if they are not being used properly then they could lead to an increased rate of recidivism (Ford & Debattista, 2012). Risk assessment tools should be used as a tool to identify high risk offenders and to assist in determining the most appropriate level of supervision (Bonta & Hanson, 2007). Risk assessment tools should not be used as an excuse for why someone is being treated differently (i.e., higher than minimum security) but rather as one factor among many that is considered when making decisions about how someone should be supervised in prison (Haney et al., 2004). In other words, it is important not use the tool as an excuse for punishing someone more harshly; instead it should be used as one piece of information that helps make decisions about how someone should be supervised/managed while incarcerated.
How Risk Assessment in Community Corrections Tools should be used
Risk Assessment in Community Corrections Process
The process for using a risk assessment tool involves: 1) identifying what factors are significant enough to include in the tool; 2) developing questions or items that assess those factors; 3) validating the questions or items; 4) creating cutoff scores for each question or item; 5) determining how many questions or items need to be answered correctly in order for someone to be considered high risk; 6) deciding on what score represents high risk (i.e., cut off score); 7) ensuring that all items/questions measure what they are intended to measure; 8) ensuring that all items/questions can be scored consistently; 9) ensuring that all items/questions can actually discriminate between high and low risk offenders; 10) ensuring that all items/questions can predict future offending; 11) ensuring that all items/questions can differentiate between groups (i.e., males vs females, violent vs non-violent offenders); 12) ensuring that the tool can actually predict recidivism rates better than expert opinion can predict recidivism rates (i.e., expert opinion); 13) ensuring that there is good inter-rater reliability among staff who use the tool; 14) ensuring there is good inter-rater reliability between staff and researchers who use the tool; 15) ensuring there is good predictive validity with respect to real world offending rates; 16) ensure there are no significant cultural differences in how people respond to questions on the tool; 17) ensure there are no significant differences between men and women with respect to how people respond on the tool; 18) ensure there are no significant differences between inmates from different regions with respect to how people respond on the tool; 19) ensure there are no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to how people respond on the tool; 20) ensure there are no significant differences between those who have been convicted of violent versus non-violent offences with respect to how people respond on the tool (Bonta & Hanson 2007).
Our Solutions
Deploy technology for your detention center, jail, or prison that streamlines operations, reduces compliance concerns, and improves safety.
Learn about us, our work, and what our future looks like. Watch video.
