Evidence-Based Sentencing

Criminology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
James C. Oleson
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Measures ◽  
Criminal History ◽  
Community Safety ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Criminogenic Needs ◽  
Actuarial Risk ◽  
Using Data

The evidence-based practice (EBP) movement can be traced to a 1992 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, although decision-making with empirical evidence (rather than tradition, anecdote, or intuition) is obviously much older. Neverthless, for the last twenty-five years, EBP has played a pivotal role in criminal justice, particularly within community corrections. While the prediction of recidivism in parole or probation decisions has attracted relatively little attention, the use of risk measures by sentencing judges is controversial. This might be because sentencing typically involves both backward-looking decisions, related to the blameworthiness of the crime, as well as forward-looking decisions, about the offender’s prospective risk of recidivism. Evidence-based sentencing quantifies the predictive aspects of decision-making by incorporating an assessment of risk factors (which increase recidivism risk), protective factors (which reduce recidivism risk), criminogenic needs (impairments that, if addressed, will reduce recidivism risk), the measurement of recidivism risk, and the identification of optimal recidivism-reducing sentencing interventions. Proponents for evidence-based sentencing claim that it can allow judges to “sentence smarter” by using data to distinguish high-risk offenders (who might be imprisoned to mitigate their recidivism risk) from low-risk offenders (who might be released into the community with relatively little danger). This, proponents suggest, can reduce unnecessary incarceration, decrease costs, and enhance community safety. Critics, however, note that risk assessment typically looks beyond criminal conduct, incorporating demographic and socioeconomic variables. Even if a risk factor is facially neutral (e.g., criminal history), it might operate as a proxy for a constitutionally protected category (e.g., race). The same objectionable variables are used widely in presentence reports, but their incorporation into an actuarial risk score has greater potential to obfuscate facts and reify underlying disparities. The evidence-based sentencing literature is dynamic and rapidly evolving, but this bibliography identifies sources that might prove useful. It first outlines the theoretical foundations of traditional (non-evidence-based) sentencing, identifying resources and overviews. It then identifies sources related to decision-making and prediction, risk assessment logic, criminogenic needs, and responsivity. The bibliography then describes and defends evidence-based sentencing, and identifies works on sentencing variables and risk assessment instruments. It then relates evidence-based sentencing to big data and identifies data issues. Several works on constitutional problems are listed, the proxies problem is described, and sources on philosophical issues are described. The bibliography concludes with a description of validation research, the politics of evidence-based sentencing, and the identification of several current initiatives.

Multi-agency child protection

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 37-49
Author(s):  
Julia Stroud ◽  
Chris Warren-Adamson
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Services ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Child Protection ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Assessment Framework ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Working Together ◽  
Actuarial Risk

Public concern over, and recent developments in, the field of child protection are well known (Munro 2012). Within these developments, there has been a strengthening of the role of social work with an increased focus on, and recognition of, professional knowledge, skills and ‘expert’ decision making (Munro 2011; Gilbert et al. 2011). Focus on inter-professional and multi-agency practice has developed alongside (Frost and Lloyd 2006; Frost and Robinson 2007; Ruch 2009), and continues to have a clear focus in the recently issued Working Together to Safeguard Children (H.M. Government 2013).This paper enquires into a relatively under-explored area of multi-agency child protection practice, specifically, that of the police (that is,. non-specialists in child protection) making an urgent, first response to a child protection call, often out of hours and without immediate recourse to the expertise and knowledge of child protection practitioners. In these situations, the police are called upon to make key decisions: for example, whether to immediately protect and remove children using police protection powers (Section 46(1) Children Act 1989), to refer on to local authority social services for a s47 investigation or s17 services, or to take no further action. There is exploration of the issues raised by a request from the police to develop an assessment framework as an aid to practice in these situations. The police had in mind an equivalent instrument to a domestic abuse framework already adopted by them. The paper reviews debates, particularly about predictive efficacy, in the construction of assessment and decision-making tools. The nature and distinction between consensus based and actuarial risk assessment instruments are examined, as are challenges for general multi-agency working, alongside the specific challenges for front line police officers. It is proposed that a consensus based assessment framework to support decision making, drawing on empirically tested, actuarially informed risk assessment evidence, which is collaboratively tested with a multi-agency group, is indicated.

scholarly journals The Trouble with Using Risk Assessment Instruments to Quantify the Chance of Future Offending

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (21) ◽  
pp. 11624
Author(s):  
Tim Goddard
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal History ◽  
People Of Color ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Past Behavior ◽  
Decision Points ◽  
Actuarial Risk Assessment ◽  
Actuarial Risk ◽  
Radical Shift

Risk assessments in carceral settings have proliferated in recent decades and are now prominent in numerous states and regions. A ubiquitous variety is actuarial risk assessment instruments that are used on children and adults to predict their future chance for misconduct (e.g., recidivism) in several vital decision points in carceral processing (e.g., pretrial confinement). These instruments rely on information about past behavior (e.g., criminal history) and an understanding of offending (e.g., antisocial personality) that is thought to be neutral, reliable, and enjoys predictive validity. However, it will be argued that when justice system personnel assess the chance of unwanted behavior in the future, several risk domains are differentially prevalent and more frequently experienced by some groups. Much of this disparity is caused by, or due to, forces external to those being assessed, for instance, inequitable social and economic conditions and inequitable decisions by justice personnel to arrest, charge, or sentence people of color. As such, risk assessment instruments inevitably and disproportionately mark some groups of people as a higher risk to violate rules, conditions, orders, or laws. Consequently, risk assessment instruments systematically disfavor disadvantage, and by inference, favor advantage, leading to the need for a radical shift in the taxonomy of classifying risk for future misconduct.

scholarly journals Implementing evidence-based assessment and selection in organizations: A review and an agenda for future research

2020 ◽  
pp. 204138662098341
Author(s):  
Marvin Neumann ◽  
A. Susan M. Niessen ◽  
Rob R. Meijer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Self Determination Theory ◽  
Assessment Methods ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Assessment Practice ◽  
Outcome Feedback ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

In personnel- and educational selection, a substantial gap exists between research and practice, since evidence-based assessment instruments and decision-making procedures are underutilized. We provide an overview of studies that investigated interventions to encourage the use of evidence-based assessment methods, or factors related to their use. The most promising studies were grounded in self-determination theory. Training and autonomy in the design of evidence-based assessment methods were positively related to their use, while negative stakeholder perceptions decreased practitioners’ intentions to use evidence-based assessment methods. Use of evidence-based decision-making procedures was positively related to access to such procedures, information to use it, and autonomy over the procedure, but negatively related to receiving outcome feedback. A review of the professional selection literature showed that the implementation of evidence-based assessment was hardly discussed. We conclude with an agenda for future research on encouraging evidence-based assessment practice.

scholarly journals Using Evidence-Based Practice and Data-Based Decision Making in Inclusive Education

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 129
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Wilcox ◽  
Cristina Fernandez Conde ◽  
Amy Kowbel
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Inclusive Education ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Teacher Capacity ◽  
Evidence Based Practices ◽  
Full Inclusion ◽  
Current State ◽  
Inclusive Settings ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Data Based Decision Making

There are longstanding calls for inclusive education for all regardless of student need or teacher capacity to meet those needs. Unfortunately, there are little empirical data to support full inclusion for all students and even less information on the role of data-based decision making in inclusive education specifically, even though there is extensive research on the effectiveness of data-based decision making. In this article, we reviewed what data-based decision making is and its role in education, the current state of evidence related to inclusive education, and how data-based decision making can be used to support decisions for students with reading disabilities and those with intellectual disabilities transitioning to adulthood. What is known about evidence-based practices in supporting reading and transition are reviewed in relationship to the realities of implementing these practices in inclusive education settings. Finally, implications for using data-based decisions in inclusive settings are discussed.

What Other Factors Indicate High or Low Recidivism Risk?

2019 ◽  
pp. 60-71
Author(s):  
Richard S. Frase ◽  
Julian V. Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Prediction Accuracy ◽  
Criminal History ◽  
Older Age ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Limited Extent ◽  
Criminal Thinking ◽  
Prior Record ◽  
Salient Factor

If prior record enhancements are justified as a way to manage offender risk, policymakers need to consider other, non-record risk factors that may improve risk-prediction accuracy. This chapter examines the limited extent to which guidelines systems have incorporated such factors—usually as a ground for departure or other adjustment after the recommended sentence has been determined based on current offense and prior record. The chapter summarizes the offense factors and non-criminal-history offender factors, such as the offender’s current age and criminal thinking patterns, that criminological research has found to be good predictors of the risk of re-offending, and that are often included in widely used risk assessment instruments such as the Salient Factor Score, CSRA, and LSI-R. Very few of these non-record risk factors have been given a formal role in guidelines sentencing. The chapter argues that judges should be allowed to consider some of these factors, especially older age.

scholarly journals Improving risk assessment of violence among military Veterans: An evidence-based approach for clinical decision-making

2010 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 595-607 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric B. Elbogen ◽  
Sara Fuller ◽  
Sally C. Johnson ◽  
Stephanie Brooks ◽  
Patricia Kinneer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Military Veterans ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based

A Review of the Validity of Juvenile Risk Assessment Across Race/Ethnicity

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Campbell ◽  
William Miller
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Ethnic Minorities ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
The United States ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
Racial Ethnic

Juvenile risk assessment instruments have provided juvenile courts with the opportunity to make standardized decisions concerning sentences and intervention needs. Risk assessments have replaced the reliance on professional decision-making practices in which court officials relied on their hunches or previous experience to determine what to do with youth once they became involved in corrections. A primary goal of juvenile risk assessment is to improve case management and help courts focus resources on juveniles who exhibit the greatest intervention needs. Further, juvenile risk assessments play a critical role in estimating which juveniles will likely reoffend by identifying factors that increase the propensity of future offending. Although some researchers believe that the implementation of standardized juvenile risk assessments is a good strategy for reducing biased decision-making for racial/ethnic minorities, other researchers have called into question the extent to which risk assessments overestimate risk for certain juveniles, especially those in minority groups who have a history of being marginalized due to their race, culture, or ethnicity. This article provides an overview of how well juvenile risk assessment instruments predict future delinquency across race and ethnicity. The review suggests that in general, risk assessments do a good job in predicting recidivism across racial/ethnic groups for diverse populations inside and outside the United States. However, there is still some room for improvement concerning the assessment of risk and needs for ethnic minorities. In addition, while there are some studies that do not report the predictive validity of risk assessment scores across race/ethnicity, risk assessments overall seem to be a promising effort to correctly classify and/or identify juveniles who are at greatest risk for future recidivism.

scholarly journals Variables influencing the case prioritisation of men convicted of internet child abuse material offences

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Garrington ◽  
Hannah Merdian ◽  
Douglas P. Boer
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Child Abuse ◽  
Sex Offenders ◽  
Impression Management ◽  
Criminal History ◽  
Community Safety ◽  
Psychological Variables ◽  
Key Variables ◽  
Reducing Recidivism ◽  
Child Abuse Material

The differentiation between men convicted of child abuse material offences, known as Internet Child Abuse Material (I/CAM), and Contact (CO) child sex offenders is an ongoing area of research. Current research indicates there are differences between men convicted of I/CAM and CO offences. This article highlights key variables that may indicate clinically and/or statistically significant differences between I/CAM and CO populations, as identified in current published research. Identified key variables may contribute to the case prioritisation of men under investigation for I/CAM offences to assist timely investigation. Post conviction, key variables may contribute to targeted treatment, reducing recidivism and protecting the global community. Articles containing variables differentiating I/CAM and CO populations were reviewed; articles that did not include any comparative analysis were excluded. The final sample of articles (n = 10) was reviewed using a literature review methodology to collate trend variables and directionality between the two populations. Demographic variables with critical differences between men convicted of I/CAM offences when compared to CO offences are younger age, White ethnic background, employed, lower use of alcohol and drugs, and less or no recorded criminal history but higher self-reported history of offending. Key psychological variables identified are lower impression management, lower demonstrations of antisociality, higher sexual deviancy and higher levels of victim empathy when compared to men convicted of CO offences. The findings will be considered in line with existing risk assessment and case prioritisation tools. This research can contribute to community safety through a specific focus on prioritising the investigation, case management, and treatment of men convicted of I/CAM offences and signals future pathways for targeted risk assessment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document