The Importance of Constructing and Validating Risk Assessment Instruments in Community Corrections Settings

Abstract

Since the late 1970s, agencies responsible for supervising offenders in the community have used assessment instruments as a way to classify offenders according to levels of risk and need. This, in turn, has provided a basis for assigning offenders to levels of community supervision. Despite evidence that risk and needs assessment instruments are not universal and should be validated for use with a particular population, most agencies currently using them have adopted existing instruments without determining whether the instruments are valid for their offender populations. Furthermore, agencies that do validate instruments for their populations often do so under less than ideal circumstances, facing constraints and data limitations that affect research decisions. This article describes how the State of New Mexico dealt with such constraints and limitations to construct a validated risk assessment instrument and illustrates the continued importance of validating risk assessment instruments, highlighting issues related to their implementation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andrews

(1990). Recidivism is predictable and can be influenced: Using risk assessment to reduce recidivism. International Association of Residential and Community Alternatives, 3(1), 13–17.

Baird

S. C.

(1991). Validating risk assessment instruments used in community corrections. Unpublished National Institute of Corrections monograph (NCJ 147395). Madison, WI: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Clear

(1988). Statistical prediction in corrections. Research in Corrections, 1(1), 1–40.

Clear

(1997). Developing a universal risk-assessment form: We're closer, but not there yet. Community Corrections Report, 4(4), 49–60.

DeComo

R. E.

Wagner

, & Baird

S. C.

(1994). Validation of the Oregon risk assessment tools used for classification of offenders on supervision. Final report submitted to the Oregon Department of Corrections (NCJ 154419).

Erwin

B. S.

(1985). Evaluation of Georgia's intensive probation supervision program. Atlanta, GA: Department of Corrections.

Erwin

& Bennett

L. A.

(1987). New dimensions in probation: Georgia's experience with intensive probation supervision (Research Brief). Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.

Ferguson

J. L.

(2002). Putting the “what works” research into practice. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(4), 472–492.

Flores

A. W.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Holsinger

A. M.

& Latessa

E. J.

(2004). Predicting outcome with the Level of Service Inventory-Revised: The importance of quality assurance. Unpublished manuscript, California State University.

10.

Glaze

L. E.

& Palla

(2004, July). Probation and parole in the United States, 2003. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin (NCJ-205336). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ppus03.pdf.

11.

Harris

(1994). Client management classification and prediction of probation outcomes. Crime and Delinquency, 40, 154–174.

12.

Hubbard

D. J.

Travis

L. F.

III , & Latessa

E. J.

(2001). Case classification in community corrections: A national survey of the state of the art. Final report submitted to the National Institute of Justice. Available at http://nicic.org/Library/018847.

13.

Johnson

K. D.

, & Hardyman

P. L.

(2004). How do you know if the risk assessment instrument works? Topics in community corrections: Assessment issues for managers. Washington DC: National Institute of Corrections. Available at http://www.nicic.org/Library/period269.

14.

Jones

P. R.

(1993). Risk prediction in criminal justice. Paper prepared for the International Association of Residential and Community Alternatives, Philadelphia, PA.

15.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Holsinger

A. M.

Brusman-Lovins

, & Latessa

E. J.

(2004). Assessing the inter-rater agreement of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised. Unpublished manuscript, University of Cincinnati.

16.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Latessa

E. J.

, & Holsinger

A. M.

(2004). Empirical evidence on the importance of training and experience in using the Level of Service Inventory—Revised. In Topics in community corrections: assessment issues for managers. Washington DC: National Institute of Corrections. Available at http://www.nicic.org/Library/period274.

17.

National Institute of Corrections. (1981). Model probation and parole management project. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

18.

National Institute of Corrections. (1989). Classification and case management for probation and parole: A practitioner's guide. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

19.

National Institute of Corrections. (2003). Topics in community corrections: Offender assessment. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. Available at http://www.nicic.org/Library/period243.

20.

O'Keefe

M. L.

Klebe

, & Hromas

(1998). Validation of the Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI) for community based offenders in Colorado: Phase II. (NCJ-175892). Colorado: Department of Corrections. Available at http://www.doc.state.co.us/AlcoholDrug/pdfs/PHASE2.pdf.

21.

Sims

, & Jones

(1997). Predicting success or failure on probation: factors associated with felony probation outcomes. Crime and Delinquency, 43, 314–327.

22.

Wright

K. N.

Clear

T. R.

, & Dickson

(1984). Universal applicability of probation risk-assessment instruments. Criminology, 22, 113–134.