This study examines the predictive validity of Risk Management Systems (RMS), a fifth-generation risk/needs assessment. In contrast to traditional risk assessments, the RMS uses exemplar-based modeling to classify offenders as high or low risk. Using a sample (N = 830) of offenders on supervised release by the U.S. Probation Office, the current study explores the relationship between the RMS scores and recidivism. The results indicate that RMS recidivism and violence scores are predictive of arrests, technical violations, and unsuccessful terminations from supervision. However, only a limited number of offenders were assigned to the high-risk category, which may limit the utility of the instrument. Policy implications are discussed.
Andrews, D.A., & Dowden, C. ( 2006). Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment: A meta-analytic investigation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 88-100.
6.
Andrews, D.A., Kiessling, J.J., Robinson, D., & Mickus, S.G. ( 1986). The risk principle of case classification: An outcome evaluation with young adult probationers. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 28, 377-384.
7.
Baird, S.C., Heinz, R.C., & Bemus, B.J. ( 1979). The Wisconsin case classification/staff development project: A two-year follow-up report. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Bureau of Community Corrections.
8.
Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. ( 2003). Gender responsive strategies: Research, practice, and guiding principles for women (NCJ 201301). Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
9.
Bonta, J.L. ( 1989). Native inmates: Institutional response, risk, and needs . Canadian Journal of Criminology, 39, 49-62.
10.
Bonta, J. ( 2002). Offender risk assessment: Guidelines for selection and use. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 355-379.
11.
Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L.L. ( 1990). Classification to halfway houses: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Criminology, 28, 497-506.
12.
Brennan, T., Dieterich, W., & Ehret, B. ( 2009). Evaluating the predictive validity of the COMPAS risk and needs assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 21-40.
13.
Brennan, T., & Oliver, W.L. ( 2000). Evaluation of reliability and validity of COMPAS scales: National aggregate sample. Traverse City, MI: Northpointe Institute for Public Management.
14.
Campbell, M.A., French, S., & Gendreau, P. ( 2009). The prediction of violence in adult offenders: A meta-analytic comparison of instruments and methods of assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 567-590.
15.
Catchpole, R.E.H., & Gretton, H.M. ( 2003). The predictive validity of risk assessment with young violent offenders: A 1-year examination of criminal outcome. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 688-708.
16.
Douglas, K., & Webster, C. ( 1999). The HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme: Concurrent validity in a sample of incarcerated offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 3-19.
17.
Dow, E., Jones, C., & Mott, J. ( 2005). An empirical modeling approach to recidivism classification . Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 223-247.
18.
Fass, T.L., Heilbrun, K., DeMatteo, D., & Fretz, R. ( 2008). The LSI-R and the COMPAS: Validation data on two risk-needs tools. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1095-1020.
19.
Folsom, J., & Atkinson, J.L. (2007). The generalizability of the LSI-R and the CAT to the prediction of recidivism in female offenders . Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1044-1056.
20.
Gendreau, P. ( 1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders . In A. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
21.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. ( 1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works!Criminology, 31, 401-433.
22.
Girard, L., & Wormith, J.S. ( 2004). The predictive validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Ontario Revision on general and violent recidivism among various offender groups. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 150-181.
23.
Glover, A.J., Nicholson, D.E., Hemmati, T., Bernfeld, G.A., & Quinsey, V.L. ( 2002). A comparison of predictors of general and violent recidivism among high-risk federal offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 29, 235-249.
24.
Gottfredson, S.D., & Moriarty, L.J. (2006). Statistical risk assessment: Old problems and new applications. Crime and Delinquency, 52, 178-200.
25.
Grove, W.M., & Meehl, P.E. ( 1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 2, 293-323.
26.
Grove, W.M., Zald, D.H., Lebow, B.S., Snitz, B.E., & Nelson, C. ( 2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis . Psychological Assessment, 12, 19-30.
27.
Hare, R. ( 2003). The Hare psychopathic checklist-revised technical manual (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario , Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
28.
Holsinger, A.M., Lowenkamp, C.T., & Latessa, E.J. ( 2004, Winter/Spring). Validating the LSI-R on a sample of jail inmates. Journal of Offender Monitoring, 8-9. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http://www.uc.edu/ccjr/Articles/ValidatingtheLSI-R.pdf
29.
Holtfreter, K., & Cupp, R. ( 2007). Gender and risk assessment: The empirical status of the LSI-R for women. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice , 23, 363-382.
30.
Hosmer, D.W., & Lemeshow, S. ( 2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
31.
Krauss, D., & Lieberman, J.D. (2007). Expert testimony on risk and future dangerousness. In M. Costanzo, D. Krauss, & K. Pezdek (Eds.), Expert psychological testimony for the courts (pp. 227-249). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
Latessa, E.J. ( 2004). Best practices of classification and assessment. Journal of Community Corrections, XII, 4-6, 27-30.
33.
Lowenkamp, C.T., Holsinger, A.M., & Latessa, E.J. ( 2001). Risk/need assessment, offender classification, and the role of childhood abuse. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 543-563.
34.
Lowenkamp, C.T., Latessa, E.J., & Holsinger, A.M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs?Crime and Delinquency, 52, 77-92.
35.
Loza, W. ( 2005). The Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ): A tool for assessing violent and non-violent recidivism. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Mental Health Systems.
36.
Manchak, S.M., Skeem, J.L., Douglas, K.S., & Siranosian, M. (2009). Does gender moderate the predictive utility of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) for serious violent offenders?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 425-444.
37.
Marlowe, D.B., Festinger, D.S., Lee, P.A., Dugosh, K.L., & Benasutti, K.M. (2006). Matching judicial supervision to clients’ risk status in drug court. Crime and Delinquency , 52, 52-76.
38.
Modeling Solutions, LLC. (2005). Risk management system: A user’s manual [Computer software manual]. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http://www.modelingsolutions.com/pdf/RMS_Users_Manual.pdf
39.
Mossman, D. ( 1994). Assessing predictions of violence: Being accurate about accuracy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 783-792.
40.
Onifade, E., Davidson, W., Campbell, C., Turke, G., Malinowski, J., & Turner, K. ( 2008). Predicting recidivism in probationers with the Youth Level of Service Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI). Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 474-483.
41.
Pratt, T.C., Holsinger, A.M., & Latessa, E.J. ( 2000). Treating the chronic DUI offender "Turning Point" ten years later. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 271-281.
42.
Quinsey, V.L., Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E., & Cormier, C.A. ( 1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association .
43.
Reisig, M., Holtfreter, K., & Morash, M. ( 2006). Assessing recidivism risk across female pathways to crime . Justice Quarterly, 23, 384-405.
44.
Rice, M.E., & Harris, G.T. ( 1995). Violent recidivism: Assessing predictive validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 737-748.
45.
Rice, M.E., & Harris, G.T. ( 2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 615-620.
46.
Salisbury, E.J., Van Voorhis, P., & Spiropoulos, G.V. (2009). The predictive validity of a gender-responsive needs assessment: An exploratory study. Crime and Delinquency, 55, 550-585.
47.
Schwalbe, C.S. ( 2008). A meta-analysis of juvenile justice risk assessments instruments: Predictive validity by gender. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1376-1381.
48.
Schwalbe, C.S., Fraser, M.W., Day, S.H., & Cooley, V. ( 2006). Classifying juvenile offenders according to risk of recidivism: Predictive validity, race/ethnicity, and gender. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 305-324.
49.
Simourd, D. ( 2004). Use of dynamic risk/need assessment instruments among long-term incarcerated offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 24, 52-70.
50.
Stylianou, S. ( 2003). Measuring crime seriousness perceptions: What have we learned and what else do we want to know. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 37-56.
51.
Taylor, K.N., & Blanchette, K. (2009). The women are not wrong: It is the approach that is debatable. Criminology & Public Policy, 8, 221-229.
52.
Webster, C., Douglas, K., Eaves, D., & Hart, S. ( 1997). HCR-20: Assessing risk for violence. Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada: Simon Fraser University , Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute.
