Does Change in Risk Matter?

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12194
• Published date: 01 May 2016
• Date: 01 May 2016
• Author: Edward J. Latessa

POLICY ESSAY

OFFENDER RISK CHARACTERISTICS

Does Change in Risk Matter?

Yes, It Does, and We Can Measure It

Edward J. Latessa

University of Cincinnati

About 8 years ago, I was invited by the leadership of the Administrative Office of

the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) to visit Washington, DC. The purpose of the meeting

was to discuss evidence-based practices in correctional supervision agencies and to

garner my opinion about the standing of Federal Probation with regard to these practices.

I recall being somewhat blunt and telling them that although Federal Probation had once

been considered a leader in the field, I did not think that was any longer true, and I could

easily name a half-dozen community correctional agencies that were on the cutting edge of

using evidence-based practices; Federal Probation was not among them. One of the most

obvious deficiencies was its failure to adopt a third-generation risk assessment tool across

the system.

In the ensuing years, a great deal has changed and I now believe that Federal Probation

can once again be considered among the leaders in the field. Many of its accomplishments

can be traced directly to the development and implementation of the Post Conviction

Risk Assessment (PCRA) and the research that has supported its use (Cohen and VanBen-

schoten, 2014; Johnson, Lowenkamp, VanBenschoten, and Robinson, 2011; Lowenkamp,

Holsinger, and Cohen, 2015). The PRCAprovided the foundation and engine that allowed

the AOUSC to implement changes in supervision practices (Robinson, VanBenschoten,

Alexander, and Lowenkamp, 2011), which in turn helped the agency meet the risk-and-

need principles (Andrews and Bonta, 1994) in a more effective and measurable way.

Although there is nothing new about risk assessment, the adaptation of tools like

the PCRA have allowed Federal Probation to improve on sorting offenders into levels of

risk, identifying criminogenic targets for change, reassessing to gauge progress (something

not really possible without a third-generation assessment tool), and introducing more fo-

cused interventions designed to address specific criminogenic needs. By improving offender

Direct correspondence to Edward J. Latessa, School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box

210389, Cincinnati, OH 45221 (e-mail: edward.latessa@uc.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12194 C2016 American Society of Criminology 297

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 15 rIssue 2