The assessment of inmate risk and need in prison poses a unique challenge to correctional policy makers because it is used for two purposes: classification and case management. Classification and case management require assessment instruments that are designed to predict two separate outcomes: institutional misconduct and community recidivism. The current research examines differences between a prison classification instrument developed to predict misconduct and a case management instrument developed to predict community recidivism using a sample of 414 inmates in Ohio. The results indicated substantial differences between assessment instruments and that separate risk and needs assessments should be conducted. A hybrid assessment system is suggested that seeks to maximize accuracy and efficiency by including select factors from each instrument.
AgnewR. (2009). The contribution of “mainstream” theories to the explanation of female delinquency. In ZahnM. A. (Ed.), The delinquent girl (pp. 7-29). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
2.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (1995). Level of Service Inventory–Revised. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.
3.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
4.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.HogeR. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
5.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.WormithS. J. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 7-27.
6.
AustinJ.HardymanP. L. (2004). Objective prison classification: A guide for correctional agencies. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
7.
BelknapJ.HolsingerK. (1998). An overview of delinquent girls: How theory and practice have failed the need for innovative changes. In ZaplinR. (Ed.), Female offenders: Critical perspectives and effective interventions. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
8.
BontaJ.MotiukL. L. (1992). Inmate classification. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 343-353.
9.
FloresA. W.LowenkampC. T.HolsingerA. M.LatessaE. J. (2006). Predicting outcome with the Level of Service Inventory–Revised: The importance of implementation integrity. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 423-529.
10.
FrenchS.GendreauP. (2006). Reducing prison misconducts: What works!Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 185-218.
GendreauP.LittleT.GogginC. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult recidivism: What works!Criminology, 34, 575-607.
13.
GendreauP.GogginC.SmithP. (2002). Is the PCL-R really the unparalleled measure of offender risk? A lesson in knowledge cumulation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 397-426.
14.
GonzalezC.BennieC. (2009). Characteristics of those who enter the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) with an expected stay of less than one year: A report based on 2008 admissions. Columbus: Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
15.
GroveW. M.ZaldD. H.LebowB. S.SnitzB. E.NelsonC. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19-30.
16.
HindelangM.HirschiT.WeisJ. (1981). Correlates of delinquency: The illusion of discrepancy between self-report and official measures. American Sociological Review, 44, 995-1014.
17.
HoffmanP. B. (1983). Screening for risk: A revised Salient Factor Score. Journal of Criminal Justice, 11, 539-547.
18.
HolsingerA. M.LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J. (2004). Validating the LSI-R on a sample of jail inmates. Journal of Offender Monitoring, 4, 8-9.
19.
HolsingerA. M.LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J. (2006). Predicting institutional misconduct using the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 267-284.
20.
JonesP. (1996). Risk prediction in criminal justice. In HarlandA. T. (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 33-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
21.
KirkD. (2006). Examining the divergence across self-report and official data sources on inferences about the adolescent life-course of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 107-130.
22.
LatessaE. J.LemkeR.MakariosM.SmithP.LowenkampC. T. (2010). The creation and validation of the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS). Federal Probation, 74, 3-12.
23.
LightS. (1990). Measurement error in official statistics: Prison rule infraction data. Federal Probation, 54, 63-68.
24.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J. (2004). Understanding the risk principle: How and why correctional interventions can harm low risk cases. In Topics in Community Corrections Annual Issue 2004: Assessment Issues for Managers (pp. 3-8). Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections.
25.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J.HolsingerA. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs?Crime & Delinquency, 51, 1-17.
26.
LowenkampC. T.LemkeR.LatessaE. J. (2008). Development and validation of a pretrial assessment tool. Federal Probation, 72, 2-11.
27.
MacKenzieD. L. (2000). Evidenced-based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 456-471.
28.
MakariosM. D.SteinerB.TravisL. F. (2010). Examining the predictors of recidivism for men and women released from prison in Ohio. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 37, 1377-1392.
29.
MaltzM. D. (1984). Recidivism. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
30.
ManchakS. M.SkeemJ. L.DouglasK. S.SiranosianM. (2009). Does gender moderate the predictive validity of the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) for serious violent offenders?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 425-442.
31.
ReisigM. D.HoltfreterK.MorashM. (2006). Assessing recidivism risk across female pathways to crime. Justice Quarterly, 23, 384-405.
32.
SimonL. (1993). Prison behavior and the victim offender relationship among violent offenders. Justice Quarterly, 10, 489-506.
33.
SimourdL.AndrewsD. A. (1994). Correlates of delinquency: A look at gender differences. Forum on Corrections Research, 6, 26-31.
34.
SmithP.CullenF. T.LatessaE. J. (2009). Can 14,737 women be wrong? A meta-analysis of the LSI-R and recidivism for female offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 8, 183-208.
35.
SwetsJ. A.DawesR. M.MonahanJ. (2000). Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, 1-26.
36.
ThornberryT.KrohnM. (2002). Comparison of self-report and official data for measuring crime. In PepperJ.PetrieC. (Eds.), Measurement problems in criminal justice research: Workshop summary (pp. 43-94). Washington, DC: National Research Council, The National Academies Press.
37.
UggenC.KruttschnittC. (1998). Crime in the breaking: Gender differences in desistance. Law & Society Review, 32, 339-366.
38.
UrbaniokF.EndrassJ.RosseggerA.NollT.GalloW. T.AngstJ. (2007). The prediction of criminal recidivism: The implication of sampling in prognostic models. European Archives of Psychiatry & Clinical Neuroscience, 257, 129-134.
39.
Van VoorhisP. (1994). Measuring prison disciplinary problems: A multiple indicators approach to understanding prison adjustment. Justice Quarterly, 11, 679-710.
40.
Van VoorhisP.WrightE.SalisburyE. J.BaumanA. (2010). Women’s risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment: The current status of a gender-responsive supplement. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 37, 261-289.
41.
WeinrathM.ColesR. (2003). Third generation prison classification: The Manitoba case. Criminal Justice Studies, 16, 305-316.
42.
WrightE.SalisburyE. J.Van VoorhisP. (2007). Predicting the prison misconducts of women offenders: The importance of gender-responsive needs. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23, 310-340.
43.
WrightK. N.ClearT. R.DickinsonP. (1984). Universal applicability of probation risk-assessment instruments: A critique. Criminology, 22, 113-134.
44.
ZahnM. A.HawkinsS. R.ChianconeJ.WhitworthA. (2008). The girls study group: Charting the way to delinquency prevention for girls. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
