Consistency and Construct Validity of the Five-Level System for Risk Communication Using Static and Dynamic Tools: An Investigation Using the Static-99R and VRS-SO

This study examined the Council of State Governments’ five-level system for risk communication, as applied to the Static-99R and Violence Risk Scale–Sexual Offense Version (VRS-SO). Aims of the system include increasing consistency in risk communication and linking risk categories to psychologically meaningful constructs. We investigated concordance between risk levels assigned by the instruments, and distributions of VRS-SO dynamic needs associated with Static-99R risk levels, among a multisite sample ( n = 1,404) of persons who have sexually offended. Concordant categorical risk ratings were assigned in just over a third of cases, suggesting that consistency remains a concern with the system, particularly when conceptually disparate tools are applied. Densities of criminogenic needs varied widely among persons assigned the same risk level by the Static-99R and diverged from the descriptions ascribed by the system. These findings can inform clinical assessments and further refinement of the system.

Balancing Political and Criminogenic Needs: Evaluating the New Zealand Department of Corrections’ Response to Men Assessed With a Below Average Risk for Sexual Recidivism

Current research provides little evidence for the effectiveness of treatment in reducing sexual offence recidivism amongst low-risk populations. However, in real-world correctional settings, program delivery rarely occurs in a vacuum, treatment may be politically mandated and unidimensional measures of program success may preclude recognition of broader benefits. The current study investigated the effectiveness of a low-intensity treatment program, both in terms of participants’ recidivism outcomes and in terms of broader organizational/systems impacts. The results demonstrated low base rate recidivism across both program participants ( n = 311) and a comparison group of men who were assessed as demonstrating similar static sexual offence recidivism risk ( n = 391), and little evidence of reduced recidivism following treatment. However, program administration led to many potential participants being identified as demonstrating higher levels of dynamic risk and overridden to more intensive treatment options ( n = 101). Given evidence that such options do effectively reduce recidivism in higher risk populations, these findings may suggest an overall positive net effect.

Hurt people hurt people: using a trauma sensitive and compassion focused approach to support people to understand and manage their criminogenic needs

Purpose This paper aims to argue that to address those factors that contribute to the probability of offending, the origins of such factors should be understood, and interventions that recognise the functional aspects of criminogenic capacities should be developed. Design/methodology/approach The paper provides a theoretical basis for trauma sensitive practice by providing an evolutionary understanding of human harmfulness alongside a summary of the impact of adversity and abuse on the developing child. Findings The paper proposes an overarching framework that uses compassion-focused therapy for risk reducing interventions with men who cause harm to others. Practical implications This paper encourages forensic practitioners to develop a trauma aware approach to intervention design and delivery. The paper provides an overview of a compassion-focused therapy as approach to intervention that conceptualises criminogenic capacities within a more holistic and functional framework. Originality/value Forensic interventions have been slow to assimilate evidence from adverse childhood experience research and have therefore been limited in their ability to address the functional origins of criminogenic need. This paper offers a framework that allows practitioners to address risk while also allowing individuals to process their own trauma and adversity.

Sorting Through the Evidence: A Step Toward Prioritization of Evidence-Based Community Supervision Practices

Studies of implementation of evidence-based supervision policies and procedures often report minimal to moderate adherence to evidence-based models. The few studies that exist examine the degree to which characteristics of probation officers, individuals on supervision, and supervision processes have an impact on rearrest (outcomes). Using administrative data on 7,326 probationers and surveys from 161 probation officers employed by five agencies, hierarchical linear models were used to identify the features of supervision processes that are most important to reduce recidivism. The findings clarify that no one evidence-based supervision feature (i.e., a validated risk and need assessment tool, case planning, treatment, compliance management, etc.) can achieve recidivism reductions. The best results can be achieved by using all features, although a risk-based case management approach that prioritizes employment and/or reducing the criminogenic needs creates similar outcomes. This article discusses the implications of prioritizing which supervision processes are used to impact positive supervision outcomes.

Improving our Risk Communication: Standardized Risk Levels for BARR-2002R

A Five-Level Risk and Needs system has been proposed as a common language for standardizing the meaning of risk levels across risk/need tools used in corrections. Study 1 examined whether the Five-Levels could be applied to BARR-2002R (N = 2,390), an actuarial tool for general recidivism. Study 2 examined the construct validity of BARR-2002R risk levels in two samples of individuals with a history of sexual offending (N = 1,081). Study 1 found reasonable correspondence between BARR-2002R scores and four of the five standardized risk levels (no Level V). Study 2 found that the profiles of individuals in Levels II, III, and IV were mostly consistent with expectations; however, individuals in the lowest risk level (Level I) had more criminogenic needs than expected based on the original descriptions of the Five-Levels. The Five-Level system was mostly successful when applied to BARR-2002R. Revisions to this system, or the inclusion of putatively dynamic risk factors and protective factors, may be required to improve alignment with the information provided by certain risk tools.

The Relevance of Women’s Economic Marginalization to Recidivism

This study examines whether changes over time in women’s criminogenic needs, particularly their financial needs, predict recidivism. In a 9-year longitudinal study, 304 women were interviewed repeatedly during 4.5 years after probation/parole began. Women provided data on both their gender-specific and gender-neutral criminogenic needs. Women’s average standing on each need and an index of their change in the need over time were computed and used to predict subsequent recidivism over the 3.4 years after the final interview. Women whose financial needs decreased were less likely to be rearrested and convicted relative to other women. The findings highlight the importance of considering a multifaceted and gender-specific definition of economic marginalization in both theory and practice. At the policy level, there is a need to reduce justice-involved women’s financial needs. In addition, further longitudinal research should be conducted to understand how different type of changes in women’s lives impact recidivism.

Combining Static and Dynamic Recidivism Risk Information Into the Five-Level Risk and Needs System: A New Zealand Example

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.

Criminogenic Need Profiles Among Substance-Using Justice-Involved Youth

The relationship between juvenile offending and substance use is well-documented. Understanding this relationship in the context of other criminogenic needs could lead to more effective treatment programming, in an effort to reduce future justice system involvement. This study retrospectively classified 276 substance-using youth in the justice system into unique profiles based on the nature and severity of self-reported substance use and criminogenic needs. We tested competing latent profile analysis (LPA) models with a variable number of profiles. A four-profile model was optimal and included: (a) clinical drug and alcohol use with high criminogenic needs; (b) borderline-clinical drug use with low criminogenic needs; (c) clinical drug use with high criminogenic needs; and (d) clinical drug use with low to moderate criminogenic needs. Profiles demonstrated unique patterns of demographic and clinical factors, index offense, and rates of recidivism. Clinical implications for justice-involved youth with substance abuse are discussed, particularly related to treatment needs/services.

Evidence-Based Sentencing

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.