Taking Risk Assessment to the Next Step

• Author: Edward J. Latessa
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12120
• Published date: 01 February 2015
• Date: 01 February 2015

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

CRIMINOGENIC NEEDS AND

CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMMING

Taking Risk Assessment to the Next Step

Edward J. Latessa

University of Cincinnati

In 1923, Hornell Hart (1923: 405) proposed that by “applyingaccurate statistical tests”

to readily available factors the prediction of parolee failure could be more accurately

achieved. He went on to argue that the principle of a “prognostic score” could be

applied not only to make parole decisions but also to determine probation, sentence,

and even sentence length. Thus, the seeds of risk prediction were planted. Although Hart

did not actually create such tools, it was only a few years later when Bruce, Harno, Burgess,

and Landesco (1928) actually developed what is considered the first actuarial risk-assessment

tool for the Illinois Parole Board.From these early beginnings, we have progressed from risk-

assessment instruments that relied primarily on static indicators to those that are referred

to as “fourth-generation assessments,” which include static and dynamic factors, case plans,

and even protective factors. Over the years, a great deal has been written about assessment

tools and practices; however, recently there has been renewed attention to this topic as the

widespread use of such tools has proliferated. Indeed, it is rare today to find a correctional

agency or program that does not use some type of risk-assessment instrument.

The debates and studies surrounding offender assessment are varied and include the

search for improving prediction, separation of risk and need factors, application of risk

factors to females and different racial and ethnic groups, inclusion of protective factors, use

in different settings, value of reassessment, reliability,and others. Although there are clearly

limitations to how much we can improve the prediction of human behavior, it has not

stopped us from trying. So why is there the renewed interest in risk assessment? There are

probably many reasons, but the widespread adoption of the risk–need–responsivity (RNR)

framework in corrections is probably the best explanation as to why so many now require

risk assessment.

The major theme of Taxman and Caudy’s (2015, this issue) study is that the identifi-

cation of classes of dynamic needs can improve our identification of related clusters and the

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:10.1111/1745-9133.12120 C2015 American Society of Criminology 67

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 14 rIssue 1