Council of State Governments

Author(s):  
Steven Campbell
Assessment ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 107319112095806
Author(s):  
Daryl G. Kroner ◽  
Bree Derrick

Correctional and forensic mental health settings potentially have multiple risk assessment instruments administered on a single client. Because of the various methods of determining risk categories, risk-level consistency can become an issue. The Council of State Governments Justice Center developed a Five-Level System that can be applied to most risk assessment instruments. Using the Level of Service Inventory–Revised and two created risk assessment instruments, the present study assessed if the Five-Level System (vs. normative percentile categories) demonstrated greater agreement between the two instruments, and, if so, the percentage of greater agreement. The Five-Level System demonstrated 4% to 5% greater agreement for both risk-level placement and recidivism rates. The implications of this greater consistency among risk assessment instruments is an increased fairness in making risk-level assignments.


1937 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph J. Spengler

Within recent months, increased attention has been given the possibility of utilizing interstate compacts to cope with problems that transcend the boundary lines of given states. A Council of State Governments has been created to promote such interstate agreements, and several states have established commissions to facilitate coöperation with this council. Compacts have been advocated as solutions not only for the problem of criminal extradition, but also for such problems as the control of the extraction of natural resources (e.g., coal, oil, gas, water supplies, and water power) and the conservation of their supply, and the regulation of milk prices, of the conditions of labor, and of the production and distribution of the services of certain classes of public utilities.


2021 ◽  
pp. 009385482110333
Author(s):  
Darcy J. Coulter ◽  
Caleb D. Lloyd ◽  
Ralph C. Serin

Communicating recidivism risk is individualized to each assessment. Labels (e.g., high, low) have no standardized meaning. In 2017, the Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSGJC) proposed a framework for standardized communication, but balancing the framework’s underlying principles of effective risk communication (and merging static and dynamic information) adds complexity. In this study, we incorporated dynamic risk scores that case managers rated among a routine sample of adults on parole in New Zealand ( N = 440) with static risk scores into the Five-Level Risk and Needs System. Compared with static risk only, merging tools (a) enhanced concordance with the recidivism rates proposed by CSGJC for average and lower-risk individuals, (b) diminished concordance for higher-risk individuals, yet (c) improved conceptual alignment with the criminogenic needs domain of the system. This example highlights the importance of attending to the underlying principles of effective risk communication that motivated the development of the system.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document