Running Head: ANALYSIS OF RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS FOR OFFENDERS 1

Analysis of Risk Assessment Instruments for Offenders

Kelly K. Haag

CCJ 410

Portland State University

7/7/2013

ANALYSIS OF RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS FOR OFFENDERS 2

Assessments of criminal offenders have evolved over the years. The original purpose of

assessment was based on the mission of correctional institutions “to protect society and to keep

correctional populations safe” (VanVoorhis & Salisbury, 2014, p. 135). Oftentimes, these

assessments were conducted by clinicians and were “subjective, impressionistic clinical

judgments” (Grove & Meehl, 1996, p.1). Salisbury (2013) states that some agencies based

supervision decisions on the “Gut Feeling Index” (p. 11). Meta-analysis of assessment

procedures proved that statistical measurement instruments provided more valid and reliable

results than clinical judgments (Gove & Meehl, 1996). Actuarial risk assessment instruments

were implemented and proven to be valid in predicting institutional misconduct for both male

and female offenders but failed to predict the likelihood of recidivism (VanVoorhis & Salisbury,

2014).

As the influence of the ideology of rehabilitation gained a foothold in correctional

institutions, assessment instruments were developed to also address the rehabilitative needs of

criminal offenders in conjunction with assessing risk (Salisbury, 2013). These needs assessment

systems focused on addressing the criminogenic needs or dynamic risk factors of criminal

offenders (Salisbury, 2013). Dynamic risk assessment tools, when properly implemented, can

measure reduction of risk factors over time due to participation in rehabilitative programming

(Salisbury, 2013). These instruments measure not only risk, but also measure needs for services.

They address both institutional management concerns and treatment concerns (Andrews, et al.,

1990).

One such instrument, the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) addresses both the

risk principle and the needs principle (VanVoorhis & Salisbury, 2014). The original version of

this instrument, the Level of Service Inventory (LSR) showed promising results in reducing rates

ANALYSIS OF RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS FOR OFFENDERS 3

of recidivism (Andrews, Bonta & Hoge, 1990). Other instruments in this category have also

shown validity and reliability, although none as strongly as the LSI-R (Salisbury, 2014).

Although these Risk/Needs assessments have been empirically shown to reduce rates of

recidivism and have significantly improved the process of matching offenders to services, there

are a number of areas to be addressed in order for correctional facilities to use these instruments

to maximum benefit (Andrews, et al., 1990). Implementation of the measurements would

require strict adherence to protocols. The Risk/Needs assessments would also benefit from the

addition of assessments for responsivity and other specific risk factors (Andrews, et al., 1990;

Salisbury, 2013). Proper implementation of current Risk/Needs assessments, further additions to

such assessments, and a focus on uniform classification instruments across agencies would

significantly improve outcomes in rehabilitative programming regarding reduction in rates of

recidivism.

First, the integrity of the administration and analysis of the tool must be maintained if the

assessment is to be valid (Van Voorhis & Salisbury, 2014). One barrier to proper administration

and analysis involves an institutional bias against seemingly complex analytical measurement

tools (Grove & Meehl, 1996). Grove and Meehl (1996) cite a number of reasons that clinicians

balk at integrating actuarial based measurements into their assessments. These include fear of

technological unemployment, self-concept, attachment to theory, fear of dehumanizing the client,

dislike of computers replacing the human mind and poor education (Grove & Meehl, 1996).

Another cause of inadequate measurement integrity is the lack of qualified staff who are properly

trained to administer the instrument.

Second, the assessment tool must be used in the environment for which it is proven valid

(Van Voorhis & Salisbury, 2014). Due to diversity in offender populations, an instrument

ANALYSIS OF RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS FOR OFFENDERS 4

validated in one setting may not be a reliable measurement instrument in another setting. For

instance, measurements must be gender-responsive (Van Voorhis and Salisbury, 2014). Race

and ethnicity must also be taken into consideration (Andrews, et al., 1990). Mental health, client

motivation, and cognitive ability may affect the outcomes of the measurement (Andrews, et al.,

1990).

Next, counselors and clinicians should receive the proper education and training to

effectively use the assessment tools. Grove and Meehl (1996) cite lack of education as an

impediment to clinicians’ understanding of the importance of actuarial measurement tools.

Andrews, et al. (1990) point to lack of education in criminal psychology as a barrier to adequate

design and implementation of assessment instruments for offenders. Academic programs should

be created to better educate and train students in offender assessment (Van Voorhis & Salisbury,

2014). Counselors and clinicians should not administer or score assessments instruments for

which they have not received proper training.

Finally, once administered, the results of the assessment must be used. Instances occur

when offenders are not enrolled in programming indicated by the assessment (Van Voorhis &

Salisbury, 2014). Custodial decisions are not always based on assessment results, but are instead

influenced by subjective decisions of counselors and case managers (Van Voorhis & Salisbury,

2014). Failure to use the instrument results wastes valuable time and resources.

Another area of consideration for improving outcomes from current assessment

procedures requires the addition of assessments to address individual needs. One such category

of assessment involves the consideration of responsivity to treatment (Andrews, et al., 1990).

Responsivity characteristics are those personal attributes or personal barriers that affect the

offender’s ability to successfully participate in and benefit from a particular correctional program

ANALYSIS OF RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS FOR OFFENDERS 5

(Van Voorhis and Salisbury, 2014). Psychological characteristics and criteria including

maturity, personality, motivation, intelligence and pathology are measured by observation or

paper and pencil tests (Salisbury, 2013; Van Voorhis and Salisbury, 2014). Homelessness must

also be a responsivity consideration, particularly in community corrections (Salisbury, 2013).

Including measurement of individual responsivity to treatment may enhance delivery and

effectiveness of rehabilitative correctional programming (Andrews, et al., 1990).

Women offenders require gender responsive risk/needs assessments to assure competent

management and treatment decisions for female offender populations. Female offenders’

criminogenic needs can be better identified using the Women’s Risk Need Assessment

instruments or the Service Planning Instrument for Women (Van Voorhis and Salisbury, 2014).

Proper mental health assessment could also provide valuable information for analyzing

risks/needs of offenders. Administration of the Beck Depression Inventory, the Minnesota

Multiphasic Personality Inventory, or the Symptom Checklist 90 could identify mental health

issues that could affect housing placement and treatment options for the individual ( Van Voorhis

& Salisbury, 2014). Lack of information regarding the offender’s mental health status could lead

to management issues related to safety of the facility. Mental health problems would also affect

responsivity to programming.

Substance abuse assessment may be necessary to identify offenders in need of additional

programming (Van Voorhis and Salisbury, 2014). Assessment instruments such as the Abuse

Subtle Screening Inventory or the Drug Abuse Screening Test would give invaluable information

as to whether risks/needs were the result of substance abuse as opposed to criminal attitudes and

criminal thinking (Van Voorhis & Salisbury, 2014).

ANALYSIS OF RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS FOR OFFENDERS 6

Sex offenders constitute another category that require individualized assessment models.

It has been observed that some sex offenders score low on general offender risk assessment in

spite of the fact that recidivism rates for sex offenders tend to be high (Van Voorhis & Salisbury,

2014). Static assessments useful for determining supervision levels include the Static 99 and the

Sex Offender Appraisal Guide (Van Voorhis and Salisbury, 2014). Wilson and Petersilia (2011)

state that the criminal justice system’s increased understanding of risk assessment allows for

greater reliance on “differentiated measures for sex offenders to distinguish offenders according

to their predicted future dangerousness” (p. 359).

In addition to classification instruments, the uniform adoption of risk assessment

instruments across criminal justice entities, or seamless classification systems, would improve

the ability of the criminal justice system to meet the needs of offenders and reduce recidivism

rates. The assessments would be uniform, clearly understood by the collaborating institutions

and follow the offender through the criminal justice system from incarceration to parole (Van

Voorhis and Salisbury, 2014).

Risk/ Needs assessments for criminal offenders have evolved from clinical judgments to

highly researched and validated instruments for managing the placement and rehabilitation needs

of offenders. Obstacles to proper implementation of the assessments impede the performance of

such measures. However, research on a next generation of Risk/ Needs assessments opens a door

to greater responsiveness to a variety of currently unmet needs. Proper implementation of

current Risk/Needs assessments, further additions to such assessments, and a focus on uniform

classification instruments across agencies would significantly improve an institution’s ability to

manage offender placement and safety concerns effectively and positively influence outcomes in

rehabilitative programming regarding reduction of rates of recidivism.

ANALYSIS OF RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS FOR OFFENDERS 7

References

Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J. and Hoge, R.D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation:

Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 17(1), 19-52.

Retrieved from: www.cjb.sagepub.com

Grove, W.M. and 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.

Retrieved from: http://www.tc.umn.edu/~pemeehl/167GroveMeehlClinstix.pdf

Salisbury, E.J. (2013). Online lecture for CCJ 410: Module 2

Van Voorhis, P. and Salisbury, E.J. (2014). Correctional Counseling and Rehabilitation,

Anderson Publishing. Waltham, MA.

Wilson, J.Q. and Petersilia, J. (2011). Crime and Public Policy. Oxford Press. New York, NY.

ANALYSIS OF RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS FOR OFFENDERS 8