Implementation of Actuarial Risk/Need Assessment and its Effect on Community Supervision Revocations

• Published date: 01 June 2013
• DOI: 10.3818/JRP.15.1.2013.95
• Author: Alexander M. Holsinger
• Date: 01 June 2013
• Subject Matter: Toward Evidence-Based Decision Making in Community Corrections: Research and Strategies for Successful Implementation



*



Implementation of Actuarial Risk/Need Assessment

and Its Effect on Community Supervision Revocations

Alexander M. Holsinger

University of Missouri – Kansas City

JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2013

© 2013 Justice Research and Policy

DOI: 10.3818/JRP.15.1.2013.95

* Abstract

While studies examining the predictive validity of the Level of Service Inventory

–

Revised

(LSI-R) are useful and should continue, more research needs to be done in

the area of systemic change: Once the LSI-R has been adopted and fully integrated

into an agency’s work, what systemic changes may occur? Does implementing a third-

generation risk/need assessment tool, for example, truly facilitate an agency’s ability to

abide by the “risk principle” of correctional intervention? This article has two central

objectives. First, the LSI-R composite score is used to predict case outcome using sev-

eral years’ worth of data from a large Midwestern city. The data were gathered from

the agencies that conduct supervision in the community. The statistical relationship

between the LSI-R score and case outcome (success vs. failure) is investigated and as-

sessed. Second, the article provides a cursory look at rates of revocation plus transfer

to prison over time (post LSI-R implementation).

To w a r d Ev i d E n c E -Ba s E d dEc i s i o n Ma k i n g i n co M M u n i T y co r r E c T i o n s :

rE s E a r c h a n d sT r a T E g i E s f o r su c c E s s f u l iM p l E M E n Ta T i o n

P



The development and use of risk/needs assessment is not new to the correctional

landscape, but in recent decades certain methods of assessment have predomi-

nated. The advent and promotion of “evidence-based practices” has led many

correctional agencies to add one or more actuarial-based assessments to their

standard procedures (most notably at intake into a facility or at the beginning

of supervision). In some respects, the use of actuarial risk/needs assessments can

be considered the cornerstone of correctional intervention. An agency (regard-

less of its specif‌ic function) must gather useful information in order to process

individuals properly, build case plans, chart progress, make referrals, and inform

discharge/exit plans (Gottfredson & Moriarty, 2006; Schlager, 2009). Actuarial

risk/needs assessment provides agencies with the necessary tools to follow the

“risk” and “need” principles of correctional intervention (Bonta, 1996).

In broad terms, proper adherence to the risk principle means that a cor-

rectional agency does several things. First, the agency must have a method in

place that reliably differentiates between two or more levels of risk (e.g., low,

medium, high). Second, these risk classif‌ications should be validly tied to the

propensity for future criminal behavior. Offenders assigned to varying risk lev-

els should have palpably different odds of failing supervision and/or recidivat-

ing. Third, the agency must be able to vary an intervention based on the level

of risk. Offenders who are high risk should receive more services than offend-

ers who are medium risk, and both high- and medium-risk offenders should

receive more services than offenders who are classif‌ied as low risk (Andrews

& Dowden, 2006).

Failure to adhere to the risk principle typically results in wasted resources

at the very least (e.g., lower risk offenders who are treated as high-risk offend-

ers may receive services they do not need). More disconcerting is the increased

likelihood of recidivism when the risk principle is not properly implemented.

For example, low-risk offenders who are placed in correctional interventions

that are too intense may have their odds of recidivating increased due to

unnecessary restrictions and disruption to their largely functional lives. Like-

wise, high-risk offenders who do not receive enough intervention are more

likely to recidivate. Proper use of the risk principle allows agencies to f‌ind

out, reliably, who among their population needs the most services and, as

important, the converse.

Adherence to the need principle of correctional intervention allows agen-

cies to effectively target criminogenic (crime-producing) behaviors (Dowden

& Andrews, 2000; Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2006; Andrews & Dowden,

2006). Too often correctional interventions (supervision, treatment) use time

and resources targeting things unrelated to recidivism. Failure to adhere to the

needs principle greatly increases the risk that agencies will waste resources on

interventions that have little to no impact on the likelihood their clients will

recidivate (Andrews et al., 2006).