articulate word output - nys division of criminal justice ... · web viewfactors such as the zip...

WW Module 03 A + C Modified Current (3)word

1. Assessment and Classification Full Research

1.1 Title Slide

Notes:

Welcome to the e-learning training module on What Works in Changing Offender Behavior with a focus on offender assessment and classification. In this module, you will be introduced to various concepts associated with offender assessments. We will be discussing the history of assessments and how assessments are utilized today to make decisions about participants’ supervision levels and placement in treatment and programming.

Published by Articulate® Storyline www.articulate.com

1.2 How to Use This Module

Notes:

Before we begin, please take a few moments to review how the presentation works. The core concepts and visuals in this module are intended for use with accompanying in-depth explanations of each slide topic. The in-depth information can be accessed in three ways, depending on learner preference: Module Notes, Audio, and Module Script. Each option contains the same information. Once the audio for each slide has ended, use the navigational buttons located at the bottom of the module presentation window to advance to the next slide.


1.3 Table of Contents

Notes:

To begin, this module focuses on the assessment and classification of participants. This is an extremely important function in community corrections, since it helps improve the supervision and treatment of participants and is closely related to our ability to manage and reduce risk. The first section will briefly review the history and evolution of risk assessments, followed by the second section, which will discuss the benefits of incorporating risk/need assessment processes into everyday correctional practice. The third section will discuss and review the principles of effective classification. The fourth section will discuss how to select the most appropriate assessment tools for your agency or facility, specific needs assessments, and explain the importance of regularly conducting re-assessments. The fifth section will examine a variety of other factors that should be considered for agencies and facilities interested in implementing effective risk assessment procedures. Finally, the sixth section will summarize the module by reviewing each of these learning objectives.


1.4 Learning Objectives

Notes:

Upon completion of this module, you will understand how assessments have developed and improved over time; recognize the importance of risk assessment and classification; understand the importance of the principles of effective classification, including the risk, need, responsivity, and override policy; understand how to select the best type of risk/need assessment instrument for your agency and why re-assessment is important for measuring changes in participant behavior; and finally, you will be able to examine other considerations that are associated with assessment and classification processes.


1.5 Section 1 History and Evolution of Risk Assesments

Notes:

Section 1 covers the history of risk assessments. Assessment of justice-involved populations is a practice that has been in existence for over 75 years. Four generations or types of risk assessments will be covered in this section. Each assessment type has advantages and disadvantages that will be discussed.


1.6 First-Generation Risk Assessments

Notes:

For much of the first half of the twentieth century, the assessment and classification of participants was left up to the judgment and discretion of corrections staff, including probation officers, prison staff, and/or clinical professionals, such as psychologists or social workers. Guided by their own professional training and experience, staff would make judgments as to who required enhanced security and supervision. Ultimately, first-generation risk assessments were a matter of professional judgment. A major problem with first-generation risk assessments is that there are no rules, standards, and/or training procedures in place to teach staff about the information that should be collected and/or how the information should be interpreted. This lack of standardization leads to a collection of irrelevant information and the under or over stressing of factors that may or may not be related to criminal behavior.


1.7 Second-Generation Risk Assessments

Notes:

Risk assessment accuracy improved with the development of standardized instruments that used actuarial measures to predict criminal behavior. Specifically, second-generation tools drew more upon evidence-based science and less upon professional judgment. These instruments considered individual items, such as history of substance abuse, that have been linked to criminal offending, and assigned a quantitative score to each item, yielding a total risk score. Participants who received higher risk scores were more likely to reoffend, while those participants scoring lower on the instrument were less likely to reoffend. Some of these risk assessment instruments are still used today. Before long, it became clear that second-generation risk instruments were more accurate in predicting criminal behavior, compared to the professional judgment used in first-generation tools. Research in this area has consistently found support for this argument, which we will discuss at the end of this section.


1.8 Pros and Cons of Second-Generation Risk Assessments

Notes:

Second-generation risk instruments demonstrated satisfactory results and could reliably differentiate between low-risk and high-risk participants. However, there were a number of limitations to these instruments. First, second-generation risk assessments were atheoretical, meaning that the items included on the tools were associated with recidivism, but it was not clear as to why these items were linked with criminal behavior. In other words, the items included on second-generation tools were not based on a theory of offender behavior. Second, the majority of items included on second-generation risk assessments were related to participants’ history of offending. Even items that did measure behavior were historical in nature - for example, “what is the participant’s history of drug abuse?” While criminal history is one of the best predictors of future behavior, these measurements provided limited information as to what needed to be done to reduce risk (i.e., change behavior). Also important, second-generation risk assessments did not take into account that participants’ behavior could change over time. Consequently, while participants’ risk levels could have remained the same or could have increased if they committed a new offense, the score never decreased due to positive changes in behavior because these instruments did not incorporate dynamic risk factors or factors about a person that could be targeted for change. In this way, once a participant scored as high-risk on a second-generation assessment, they were always high-risk.


1.9 Third-Generation Risk Assessments

Notes:

Rehabilitation is grounded on the basis that people can change. In this way, if assessments are to contribute to rehabilitative efforts, they must be capable of measuring change. The measurement of change, therefore, is what fundamentally separates second-generation assessment tools from third-generation instruments. Grounded in the risk-need-responsivity model of offender assessment and rehabilitation, third-generation (and eventually fourth generation tools, which we will discuss next) include both static and dynamic risk/needs factors. Recall that static factors are attributes about a person that cannot be changed, such as history of criminal behavior or history of drug abuse. Dynamic factors, on the other hand, can be targeted for change because they reflect participants’ current and evolving situation and relationships. Assessments, for example, may include items about who the participant is hanging out with, whether they are currently employed, or what their current attitude is towards the criminal justice system. Because third generation assessments are based on a theoretical framework, they allow for the identification of criminogenic needs - or those factors that make someone more likely to engage in criminal behavior. These provide corrections staff with information as to what individual needs should be targeted in treatment and programming to reduce recidivism. Each instrument includes a number of static and dynamic risk/needs factors. Although each of these instruments emphasize the importance of criminogenic needs, they historically provided relatively little guidance in terms of case management and re-assessment processes. There are a variety of third generation tools being used in the field today.


1.10 Fourth-Generation Risk Assessments

Notes:

Recognized as the most current advancements in risk assessments, fourth generation instruments provide greater guidance in the management of risk and needs by highlighting the importance of responsivity factors. Previous generations of risk assessments did not focus on those internal and external factors that create barriers impacting clients’ progress in treatment. Fourth-generation risk assessments are designed to be integrated into the development of supervision plans, the selection of intervention approaches, and the measurement of treatment progress. Incorporating these case management and re-assessment strategies assist in successful interventions and can measure change over time.


1.11 Actuarial Assessments versus Professional Judgment

Notes:

Research has found that professional judgment for predicting risk to reoffend is inferior to objective and structured methods of prediction. Grove and colleagues, for example, completed a meta-analysis of 136 studies regarding the prediction of human behavior and health diagnoses. A meta-analysis reviews, analyzes, and summarizes research on specific topics by combining results from different studies in the hope of identifying patterns among study results. The results of their meta-analysis showed that out of all of the included studies, only 8 studies found more favorable results for clinical judgment over empirically-based risk assessment instruments. In other words, the majority of studies found that statistical assessment techniques outperformed clinical predictions when predicting human health and behavior.


1.12 Actuarial Assessments versus Professional Judgment

Notes:

In 1928, the Illinois State Board of Parole published a study completed by sociologist Ernest Burgess of the parole outcomes for 3,000 criminal offenders. Burgess identified 21 factors that differentiated parole successes from parole failures and he used these factors to construct a risk scale. The factors are listed in the above slide and includes various indicators, such as: general type of crime, nature of the sentence, age, and number of previous offenses. The presence of a factor was assigned a score of 1, while the absence of a factor was assigned a score of 0. The higher the score, the greater the likelihood of failure while on parole. Results indicated that the Burgess Scale was fairly accurate in predicting failure on parole. For example, offenders who fell in the highest risk category had a failure rate of 76%, while those who fell in the minimum risk category, had a failure rate of just 1.5%. While the items included on the Burgess scale were difficult to develop into treatment targets, the scale ultimately showed that even a crude actuarial risk assessment was superior to clinical judgment when predicting future criminal behavior.Even though research has shown that more structured and objective measures for predicting offending behavior are almost three to four times more accurate than using professional judgment and intuition, some corrections agencies are still using this method to date. However, several researchers and practitioners have argued that basing offenders’ future criminal behavior off of professional opinion alone is legally, ethically, and practically unacceptable. In this way, the next section will highlight the importance of using sound assessment and classification procedures and discuss the benefits of incorporating these tools into everyday correctional practice.


1.13 Section 2 The Importance of Assessment and Classification

Notes:

Section 2 identifies key characteristics associated with administering risk assessments and discusses the benefits associated with assessment and classification processes.

1.14 Importance of Assessment and Classification


Notes:

The main goal of classification systems is to provide a typology or categorization of participants based on some behavioral, psychological, and functioning dimensions. By distinguishing quantifiably determined levels of risk, corrections professionals are able to better understand the individual participant and develop some expectations about their future behavior. Risk assessment instruments are actuarial-based, meaning that they are based on research, predict group behavior, rather than an individual’s specific behavior, and include both static and dynamic risk factors. Actuarial risk assessments are calculated or scored very similarly to how insurance companies calculate insurance rates. For example, certain factors increase a person’s risk to file a claim with their car insurance company and these lead to insurance companies charging a higher insurance rate. Factors such as the zip code in which you live, the number of previous speeding tickets you have received, and falling into a certain age range, all impact your insurance premium rate. Similarly, actuarial instruments in corrections are based on statistical analysis of records and other information, resulting in the development of probability tables: if you score X, you have an X chance of reoffending. Studies dating back over 50 years have consistently demonstrated that actuarial prediction is more accurate than clinical prediction.Ultimately, effective assessment and classification processes have implications for criminal justice actors and the participants under their watch, as well as for the general public.

1.15 Benefits of Assessment and Classification

Notes:

Assessment is not only the engine that drives effective interventions with participants, but also is important for a number of other reasons, that as previously discussed, can have significant implications for the criminal justice field. For staff, effective classification and assessment processes help to reduce bias and the use of personal intuition by providing you with objective criteria to follow when scoring out the tool. In addition, assessment tools can help you identify the participants who are most at risk of recidivating, which subsequently helps improve placement of participants and utilization of scarce resources. For participants, not only do risk assessment instruments help identify overall risk levels, but modern generation assessments help to identify individuals’ criminogenic needs. The more criminogenic needs, or crime-producing traits, associated with a person the more risky they tend to be. Ultimately, modern instruments provide more information about the unique participant, which helps guide decision making in a systematic way.


Finally, assessments help enhance public safety by ensuring that the right types of participants, like highest risk participants, are kept in custodial settings, rather than kept out in the community.


Notes:

Risk assessments are used at various points in the system, including pretrial, community supervision, prison intake, and prison reentry. For example, risk assessments are utilized by the courts at the pre-trial level to help predict defendants’ risk of failing to appear in court and/or their likelihood of violating pre-trial probation. After conviction, courts may use the results of the risk instrument to make disposition decisions -- including, but not limited to, length of sentence on probation or length of stay in a community-based residential facility, programming and treatment needs, and/or contact standards. Similarly, prisons and jails may use the results of the assessment to make decisions about inmate classification, make early release decisions, and/or determine programming and treatment needs for participants.



Notes:

In 1999, the University of Cincinnati, in collaboration with the National Institute of Justice, surveyed all U.S. probation and parole agencies to determine the state of assessment and classification practices across the country. Preliminary results found strong support for using standardized and objective instruments for assessing risk and needs. More specifically, almost 80 percent of the respondents indicated that using these types of instruments was “very important” or “absolutely necessary.” In addition, at the time of the study the majority of the agencies that returned a survey claimed to have standardized, objective case classification procedures in place already. Of those that had processes in place, the majority were classifying on overall risk and needs, substance abuse, and sexual offending. Today, states have adopted and implemented standardized assessment tools that are used throughout the state and across a wide range of settings, while others have taken a less systematic approach. For instance, the state of Ohio utilizes a state-wide risk assessment for juveniles and another statewide risk assessment system for adults. Both of these systems span the juvenile justice and criminal justice systems, respectively.



Notes:

In New York State, there are four primary risk assessment tools utilized. The Youth Assessment Screening Instrument (YASI) is a systematic set of assessment, PDI, case planning tools for use with PINS, and JD cases at juvenile intake, investigation and supervision used. The Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanction (COMPAS) is a standardized risk and needs assessment tool covering four different types of risk (violence, recidivism, failure to appear in court, and community non-compliance), and 18 different criminogenic needs. The software also includes case planning and reports generation features. COMPAS is unique because it was developed for, validated, and normed on a representative sample of participants in New York State. Both tools are currently used by every county in New York State with the exception of New York City who use the Y-LSI and the LSI-R. The Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory™ (YLS/CMI™) is a risk/needs assessment and a case management tool combined into one convenient system derived from the Level of Service Inventory-Revised™ (LSI-R™). The YLS/CMI helps probation officers, youth workers, psychologists, and social workers identify the youth’s major needs, strengths, barriers, and incentives; select the most appropriate goals for him or her; and produce an effective case management plan. The Level of Service Inventory-Revised™ (LSI-R™) is a quantitative survey of participant attributes and their situations relevant to level of supervision and treatment decisions. Designed for ages 16 and older, the LSI-R helps predict parole outcome, success in correctional halfway houses, institutional misconducts, and recidivism.


1.19 Section 3 Principles of Effective Classification

Notes:

Section 3 covers the principles of effective classification. The principles of effective classification were developed to assist criminal justice agencies in the use of risk assessment systems. In short, the principles of effective classification recommend that agencies use actuarial assessment tools to identify individuals’ risk and need factors, while also identifying responsivity factors or potential barriers to treatment. The most intensive programming should be allocated to moderate- and high-risk cases, while low-risk cases should receive little, if any, programming. According to NYCRR 351, the term classification means the specification of the type and frequency of contact between probation officer and probationer in accordance with criteria and procedures which determine the required level of supervision.


1.20 Risk Principle

Notes:

Notably, third and fourth generation risk assessment tools would not have been possible without the risk-need-responsivity model of offender assessment and rehabilitation. First, the risk principle tells us who to target. More specifically, interventions should be matched by risk level, reserving the most intensive treatment and programming for higher risk participants. Why high risk participants? The reason is simple; they have the highest risk of reoffending. Besides, why would we devote resources to those participants who have a low probability of ever coming back again?

This is not only a question of priorities but also one of effectiveness. A number of studies have shown that placing lower risk participants into intensive programs and higher levels of supervision can actually increase their failure rates. At the same time, we have our highest treatment effects among high risk participants. Seems odd, but if high risk participants receive appropriate programming, they tend to achieve the greatest reductions in recidivism. Low risk participants in the same programs actually do worse. Fortunately, if we survey participants’ risk and criminogenic needs, we can produce an accurate measure of risk.


1.21 Major Set of Risk/Need Factors

Notes:

This and other research has led Andrews and Bonta to identify a major set of risk factors. This slide shows the eight major risk/need factors, or correlates of criminal conduct. The first risk factor is having antisocial or procriminal attitudes, values, and beliefs. This risk factor manifests itself in several ways: negative expressions about the law, about self-management of behavior, and a lack of empathy and sensitivity toward others. The second major risk factor is having antisocial friends and a lack of prosocial friends and acquaintances. Friends often act as role models, provide the context, and provide the reinforcement for criminal behavior.

The third major risk factor is one that is often ignored in assessment; temperamental and personality factors. This includes weak socialization, impulsivity, egocentricism and having a taste for risk. The fourth major risk factor is criminal history and other antisocial behavior. Criminal history is a very strong predictor of future behavior. The fifth major risk factor involves family factors, including criminal behavior in the immediate family, and a number of other problems such as low levels of affection, poor parental supervision, and out right neglect and abuse.

The sixth major risk factor includes low levels of personal educational, vocational, and financial achievement. The seventh major risk factor is low levels of involvement in prosocial leisure activities. A participant having too much idle time can be problematic. It may lead an increased risk of associating with antisocial peers in a similar situation. Filling that idle time may lead to them being involved in more criminal activities. Finally, the eighth risk factor is the abuse of alcohol and/or other drugs. This often allows for the interaction with antisocial peers, impacts social skills, and, in the case of illicit drugs, is illegal in and of itself. The participant’s social skills and thinking patterns shift focus on how they will be obtaining alcohol or other drugs.


1.22 Need Principle

Notes:

The need principle tells us what to target for change. More specifically, the need principle states that interventions and programs should target needs that are likely to get a person in to trouble again - those criminogenic factors from the previous slide. Remember that criminogenic need factors are dynamic, meaning that they can change when targeted properly through intervention and treatment.

Participants are not high risk for recidivism because they have one risk or need factor, but rather are high risk because they have multiple risk and need factors. Programs that target only one such need may not produce the desired effects. For example, while lack of employment is correlated with criminal conduct for many participants, this factor by itself is not enough to cause someone to be high risk. After all, if most of us were unemployed, we would not start selling drugs or robbing people; we would simply start looking for another job.


1.23 Responsivity Principle

Notes:

The responsivity principle tells us how to target criminogenic needs to ensure that participants are successful on community supervision and/or in a custodial setting. These are non-criminogenic factors or barriers that may impact the participant’s response to interventions. Research has consistently shown that participants respond differently to treatment strategies and/or to correctional environments. For example, one participant might do well in a group treatment setting, while another participant might do better in individual sessions with their counselor, case manager, or probation officer. It is important to identify key responsivity factors for each participant, as it helps to maximize the benefits of treatment. The next slide will provide an overview of different types of responsivity.


1.24 Responsivity Factors

Notes:

Literature differentiates two types of responsivity; specific responsivity and general responsivity. Specific responsivity tells us to match the styles and mode of services to key participant characteristics and learning styles. As the term indicates, these are barriers that may impact the specific or individual participant; in other words, what might be a barrier for one participant, is not necessarily a barrier for another participant. Examples of specific responsivity, include, but are not limited to, a lack of transportation and/or childcare, lack of motivation, race/ethnicity differences between the participant and particular staff, and other factors that can effect a participant’s engagement in a program.


1.25 Responsivity Factors

Notes:

General responsivity refers to the fact that interventions based on social learning and cognitive behavioral models are the most effective way to teach people new behaviors regardless of the type of behavior or type of individual. Structured social learning programs teach participants new skills to replace their antisocial behaviors and prosocial behaviors and attitudes are reinforced. Related, cognitive behavioral programs attempt to change participants’ patterns of thinking and feeling to subsequently change their behavior and actions. It is important to note that curricula based on social learning and CBT models can be used in almost any setting, including prisons, one-on-one sessions between the participants and their probation officer, counselor, or case manager, in schools, day reporting centers, and in residential and outpatient programs.


1.26 Professional Judgement

Notes:

The final principle is called professional judgement, commonly referred to as override. This means that the person conducting the assessment, having considered risk, need, and responsivity factors, should now use their professional judgment in making a final decision in the client’s overall risk level.Think about the college professor with a Psych 101 course. If the professor based your grade solely on her judgment of your answers given in class and provided no final exam or assignments, what would you think? At first you might think that this is the best class ever taught. After some thought, you may start to wonder, how does my professor remember all of those answers given in class? With all of the students in my class, is my professor grading fairly? What if I disagree with the grade? If the professor has no objective means for assessing your talent, the grade you get is purely subjective. When you add means to test your ability, like a final exam, much of the subjectivity is removed. Does it mean your professor cannot or will not take your participation into account for a final grade? No; your professor is able to incorporate their professional judgment when assigning a final grade.Assessment tools are intended to consider participants collectively; however, it is not possible for these assessments to anticipate risks and needs of every individual participant. As a result, professional override, in certain circumstances, is a key component of any assessment system. For example, you may have a domestic violence individual that committed a violent act that assesses as low-risk. Other case information can be considered to override that assessment. This is an area where your professional judgment, in conjunction with program policy, and combined with assessment results, helps to guide a decision. Generally, the research indicates that overrides should be done very rarely. More specifically, overrides should occur less than 10% of the time across each staff person conducting assessments. The outcome of risk/need assessments can be overridden, but the override should be justified and should require a supervisor’s approval.


1.27 Professional Judgement and Specialized Populations

Notes:

In some instances override rates may increase if particular staff are carrying specialized caseloads, such as sex offenders or severe mental health caseloads. For these populations, a general risk/needs assessment should still be conducted; however, agencies may want to consider using additional assessments to get a clearer picture of the participant’s areas of need. Sex offenders, for example tend to score out low or moderate on general risk/needs tools. However, when a sex offender-specific assessment is used, their score may increase, which may be justification to override the original risk/need level. Ultimately, using a combination of general and specific tools helps programs measure progress in reducing and improving participants’ need areas both pre-treatment and post-treatment. A variety of specialized assessment instruments will be discussed in the following section.


1.28 Section 4 Specific Needs Assessments and Re-Assessments

Notes:

Section 4 reviews how to select the most appropriate assessment tools for your agency or facility, specific needs assessments, as well as the importance of regularly conducting re-assessments. Understanding that participants can change and that change impacts their overall risk score is beneficial to classification. This assists us in being able to support clients in future steps associated with their treatment and supervision.

1.29 Selecting General Risk/Needs Assessments


Notes:

As you can see, there are many options available when choosing general risk assessment tools, including tools for adults, such as the Ohio Risk Assessment System or the ORAS, the Level of Service Inventory-Revised or the LSI-R, the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanction or COMPAS and the Wisconsin Risk/Needs scales. The Women’s Risk/Needs Assessment or the WRNA, is also a general risk/needs assessment that is used specifically with a female offenders. General assessment tools have also been developed and validated for use with juvenile populations, including: the Ohio Youth Assessment System or the OYAS, the Youth Level of Service Inventory or the YLSI, the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory or the YLS/CMI, the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument or the YASI, and the Positive Achievement Change Tool or the PACT. All of these tools for both adults and juveniles are commonly used in courts, community corrections, and prison settings.

1.30 Selecting Additional Assessments

Notes:

A variety of instruments have also been developed that focus on particular antisocial behaviors and/or specific criminogenic need areas. Similar to the discussion from the previous section, these instruments may be used in conjunction with general risk/needs assessment tools and may be helpful for a variety of reasons. First, results from additional tools may provide the staff person with a deeper understanding of the participant’s needs and help the staff person and the participant build an individualized case plan. Second, this case plan, subsequently, can be consistently monitored and updated to determine whether the participant’s needs are improving over time. Finally, the results from a specialized assessment may be used to justify overriding the general risk/needs assessment. For example, if it is determined that Johnny is moderate risk to reoffend on a general risk/needs tool and the substance abuse domain of that tool appears to be driving his moderate risk level, his probation officer may want to conduct a specialized assessment that examines Johnny’s substance abusing behavior more in depth. If it is determined from that specialized assessment that Johnny has a serious, chronic drug abuse problem, this may be justification enough for his probation officer to override his overall risk level to high and supervise him at a high level - at least until Johnny goes through treatment and programming to address his substance abuse issues. As we have discussed, when assessments are appropriately utilized, they determine the overall risk level and placement of an individual on community supervision. Once the client’s criminogenic needs have been addressed in a treatment setting or the like, it is appropriate to reassess the client. Remember, since


most of the criminogenic needs are dynamic, the participant’s risk level can either increase or decrease. If we adhere to the principles of effective intervention when we are treating clients, conducting future reassessments can actually lower a client’s risk level!Now that we understand why additional assessments may be incorporated into everyday risk assessment processes, let’s take a look at some of these instruments. First, several instruments have been developed that examine a variety of antisocial attitudes and behaviors. For example, the Criminal Sentiments Scale or the CSS measures attitudes and values pertaining to and in support of criminal conduct; the Pride in Delinquency or the PID assesses an individual’s degree of comfort about involving themselves in specific criminal behaviors; the How I Think, or the HIT Questionnaire measures self-serving cognitive distortions, also known as thinking errors and Texas Christian University’s Criminal Thinking Scale, or TCU-CTS, is a self-report instrument that assesses participants’ cognitive functioning expected to be related to criminal conduct. Related to specific behaviors, the Spousal Abuse Risk Assessment or the SARA was developed to predict the risk of spousal abuse, and the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide or the VRAG was designed to predict participants’ risk of violent offending. Tools such as the the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide, or the SRAG, and the STATIC-99 were developed to predict participants’ risk of sexual offending. Finally, the Impaired Driving Assessment, or the IDA, was developed to identify participants’ risk of driving under the influence and subsequently, make suggestions about the most effective community supervision placement to reduce the participant’s risk level. Examples of assessments that focus primarily on family are the Parenting Stress Index and Family Environment Scale. The Parenting Stress Index is a parental self-report designed to identify potentially dysfunctional parent-child systems. The Family Environment Scale was designed to assess the interpersonal relationships and the overall social environment within the family.There are multiple assessments that can be utilized to measure the level of risk associated with substance abuse. Examples include the Addiction Severity Index, or the ASI, the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Instrument, or the SASSI, the Texas Christian University Drug Screen II, or the TCUDS II, the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test, or the the MAST, and the Drug Abuse Screening Test, or the DAST. The ASI was created to enable clinical researchers to evaluate the treatment outcome of drug and alcohol patients. The SASSI was developed to determine the likelihood that an individual has a substance dependence disorder. The TCUDS II is a self-administered assessment that helps identify individuals with a history of heavy drug use or dependency. It is useful and widely used as a tool in criminal justice settings for identifying participants eligible for treatment services. The MAST and the DAST are self-report questionnaires that help identify whether an individual has a drinking problem or whether they were involved with using drugs over the past 12 months, respectively. Several instruments have also been developed and validated that measure mental health and personality characteristics. Examples include Texas Christian University’s Client Evaluation of Self or the TCU-CEST which measures and monitors client needs, psychosocial changes, and performance in treatment; and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory or the MMPI, which assesses personality traits and psychopathology.Finally, instruments related to testing participants’ education levels includes the Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System or the CASAS and the Test for Adult Basic Education or the TABE. The CASAS is the most widely used competency-based assessment system in the United States and is designed to assess relevant real-world basic skills of adult learners and literacy skills needed to function effectively at work and in life. The TABE is a diagnostic test used to determine a person's skill levels and aptitudes and is also used by public service agencies who are guiding people into adult education programs, such as getting a GED or going to trade school.


1.31 Re-Assessment

Notes:

Fourth-generation instruments can be administered throughout different phases in the criminal justice system. This allows for the documentation of change in specific criminogenic needs and overall risk potential that might occur between a participant’s initial contact with the criminal justice system all the way through reentry. Throughout this module we have discussed that the most effective programs target dynamic risk factors. Remember, dynamic risk factors are factors that, when changed, have been shown to result in a reduction in recidivism. Of the “Central Eight” risk/need factors, seven domains are dynamic. The only static factor that cannot be changed is criminal history because we cannot go back in time and change the past. The Risk and Need principles imply that assessments should be repeated since there is an expectation that a participant’s dynamic risk could change with the right intervention. Even without systematic intervention, a participant’s life circumstances can change affecting their risk to reoffend. There may be certain factors that could change. For example, let’s say Paul was arrested for a Carrying a Concealed Weapon and his probation officer conducted a risk assessment. The risk assessment concluded that Paul was high risk to recidivate. Areas that needed to be addressed with Paul were his procriminal attitudes, procriminal associates, substance abuse, employment and leisure/recreation. Six months later, Paul was re-arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. But in that six months Paul obtained a full time job where he is working 40 hours a week, he has moved back in with his parents, he attends an alcoholic support group three nights a week, and is heavily involved in prosocial activities in his church. Paul needs to be re-assessed because many high risk things have changed in his life. Paul may need additional services targeting his substance abuse, but Paul is likely at lower risk to reoffend. If we place Paul in a locked down facility for 6 months, would this be a good idea?The answer is no, we would not want to place Paul in a high risk program because we actually may do more damage to Paul in the long run. Paul may lose his job and his relationships with prosocial groups could be damaged. Paul will be better suited to receive some other form of intervention that may not disrupt these domains. Again, studies indicate that placing high risk and low risk participants together is never a good strategy. When we take lower risk participants- who by definition are fairly prosocial - and place them in a highly structured, restrictive program, we disrupt the factors that make them low risk. Unless we complete formal reassessment of the participants, we will not be able to pick up on these key changes in a structured manner.


1.32 Re-Assessment

Notes:

When results of the risk/need assessment are incorporated into the case plan process, re-assessment will assist in deciding the next step needed for the participant. Once re-assessed, we can figure out if a participant needs additional treatment or if we can provide less restrictions. An individual can be re-assessed in various phases throughout the system. A re-assessment is recommended every 6 to 12 months or if a serious life event (positive or negative) occurs that would change one or two entire domains. For example, the participant gets married and holds a job for a consistent amount of time which are positive life events versus the participant committing a new crime or relapses which would be considered negative life events. At a minimum, reassessment would occur every 12 months after their initial assessment. This provides adequate time for an individual to participate in treatment and work on the goals set forth in their case plan. Participants can be re-assessed upon completion of a supervision plan or a residential treatment program to see what areas still need to be addressed in future planning. The results of the assessment’s information are helpful in determining appropriate responses to violations of probation conditions or program rules. The same violation committed by different participants may result in different responses. The nature and severity of the response to be imposed, up to and including revocation of probation and imprisonment or program termination, depends upon a re-assessment of risk in the individual case. The re-assessment should result in appropriate revisions to the supervision plan to avoid future violations as well as imposition of some form of swift and certain sanction in response to the current violation.


1.33 Re-Assessment

Notes:

In line with the previous discussion regarding re-assessment processes, a 2012 study conducted by Brusman-Lovins found that male correctional programs that conducted re-assessments had significantly improved treatment effects compared to programs that did not re-assess participants. More specifically, programs that conducted re-assessments had a five percent improvement rate over those programs that did not conduct re-assessments. The results of the study reinforce the concept that when we re-assess properly, we can provide services to those who need interventions versus those who do not; thus improving programming effectiveness.


1.34 Section 5 Other Considerations

Notes:

Section 5 covers other considerations that are associated with risk assessment. We will discuss reliability and validity when conducting an assessment, effective interviewing skills and also touch on the importance of training, staff resistance, quality assurance monitoring, and case planning.

1.35 Accuracy in Scoring: Validity and Reliability


Notes:

Why is it important that we score assessments accurately? In other words, what would be the problem with very different participants being scored the same way on an assessment? Or participants who are very similar, being scored out differently on an assessment? If this were the case, it would mean our risk/need assessment was not valid nor reliable.

The assessor’s main concern during the interview process is to develop the knowledge and skills necessary to collect information for a valid and reliable assessment. A reliable instrument has both consistency and stability where the same measurement process yields the same results. While validity focuses on the extent to which we are measuring what we intend to measure. If you imagine playing darts, for example, the objective is to hit the bull’s eye, right? If we hit the bull’s eye or very close to it each time, like the image on the far right, our results are both reliable and valid. If, on the other hand, our darts are centered around one area, but not around the bull’s eye, such as in the image on the far left, our results are reliable ,but not valid - meaning results are consistent and stable, but they are not hitting close to the objective or the bull’s eye. Finally, if our darts are spaced out all over the board, such as in the middle image, our results are valid, but not reliable - meaning we might be measuring what we intend to measure, but our results are inconsistent. Our goal is to hit the bull’s eye every time, measuring what we intend to measure and doing it in a consistent way.In short, the assessment should produce the same results, no matter who uses the tool or administers the assessment - this ensures that the same, or very similar, decisions are being made about the same kinds of participants. In addition, the tool must do what it claims to do - in our case, the tool should be predicting the likelihood of reoffending.

1.36 Conducting the Assessment

Notes:

Prior to administering the assessment, there are multiple sources of information one might utilize to ensure accurate scoring. If you have access to the client’s file, the first thing you should do is conduct a thorough file review prior to the interview. The file review provides background information that may be important during the interview and offer information on the client’s current offense. This also includes any available case history information and/or criminal history information that may indicate repetitious behavior, Some instruments include a self-report component that may be filled out by the participant prior to the interview. Usually the self-report is optional, but it may be useful for determining participants’ honesty or


consistency between how they answer on the self-report and during the interview. An interview guide adds structure for the interview. The interview guide ensures that you ask the same questions each time you administer the assessment. By utilizing the interview guide, you are increasing the validity and reliability associated with the scoring guide results. Collateral information can be used to support information gathered in the interview. Sources of collateral information include interviews with family, previous supervising officers, teachers, treatment programs, or anyone else that may have had contact with your client. This information collected will help you increase accuracy when scoring your assessment. Lastly, a scoring guide should be consulted when scoring items. The scoring guide provides a brief overview of the assessment tool followed by an item by item explanation of the scoring criteria. One of the most important things to remember is to utilize the scoring guide that came with the tool/instrument when conducting assessments. A scoring guide will tell you how to formally score out the tool. This guarantees that you are being objective when calculating results. Scoring the assessment should occur after the interview has been completed. The consistent use of the scoring guide ensures that each assessment you conduct does the job it is designed to do. Remember, how you score an assessment may be called into question in court or in an administrative hearing. Scoring guides help take the biases out of the equation and allow us to provide consistent supervision.Scoring the assessment during the interview is ineffective because you are taking everything the client says as truthful responses and as we know, clients may embellish the truth or outright lie. Utilizing the file review, self-report and collateral information may make the assessment process longer, but it will yield more consistent results.

1.37 Other Considerations

Notes:

Inadequate training or a lack of formal training can be a major problem for agencies or facilities attempting to implement a risk assessment process. Without adequate training, staff could misuse or misinterpret the results of the instrument which could lead to a host of other problems. Whatever assessment tool your agency is using, it is important that you have received formal training on the instrument. While this module is a great first step in understanding assessments, nothing replaces training for the specific tools you are currently using or are thinking about using. Proper training will ensure that staff use the tool in an appropriate and consistent manner, which will ultimately lead to increased reliability and validity. When a new assessment tool is implemented, staff resistance is one of the most persistent difficulties to overcome. Some of the common comments include “I have enough experience, I can talk to him for five minutes to determine their level of risk,” “I don't have time to conduct an assessment,” “It doesn’t matter


what we do, they are all high risk,” and “They all get the same treatment anyway so why assess them?” While staff resistance can be a challenge; most correctional agencies understand the importance and value of using a valid and reliable risk assessment tool.Another barrier occurs when programs and agencies do not use the results to inform program practice. The value of the assessment comes in to play when supervision and services are informed by the results of the assessment. Usually, programming is the same as before- that is, everyone gets the same treatment or intervention regardless of the assessment results. This can be avoided with proper training in this topic and quality assurance mechanisms in place to monitor how assessment results are incorporated into an individual’s supervision or case plan. The case plan is where the information gathered from assessment is used as a blueprint for changing participant behavior and reducing risk. Once we have assessed for risk, needs, and responsivity factors of a participant, the next difficult step is determining how to target these factors for change. This process usually starts with the development of a supervision plan, case plan, or treatment plan. While there are numerous examples of how this is done, the main goal is to identify the problem, the objectives, who is responsible, and the time frame for completion. The case plan should be directly tied to the information obtained from the assessment and should address the criminogenic needs identified as moderate or high risk.When an agency has a plethora of assessment tools, the question always comes up: “Are more assessments better than one?” On one hand, the use of multiple instruments for the same purpose may confuse the issue because it is unlikely that the results of multiple instruments will be identical. Alternatively, the use of multiple instruments for the same or similar purposes may strengthen one’s ultimate impression of the case. For example, in an initial assessment a client may score high risk in the substance abuse domain. A practitioner can administer a specialized drug or alcohol assessment to dig a little deeper on this client’s specific substance abuse usage for treatment planning purposes. This will further validate the importance of the client’s substance abuse risk to be targeted and addressed.When an assessment is completed, the results should be shared with the participant. In fact, many times the participant will want to know how he or she scored. By explaining the results, the participant will have a better understanding of what is next for him or her and may help answer any questions they may have. Even if you don’t have all the information you’d like, provide what you have and let the participant know when you expect to have additional information and answers to their questions. The key to effective communication with your clients and referral agencies about the risk assessment process and risk results is building and maintaining trust. Results gathered from your risk assessment should also be shared with potential referral agencies. Information gathered through interviews and other collateral information provides other entities more in-depth details concerning this person. These providers may only get the name of the client and no further information and that could be hazardous. For example, let’s say you have a client who can only read at a 5th grade level and he is referred to a class that requires activities that include reading out loud. If the service provider did not know this barrier and punished the client for being non-compliant and kicked him out of the program, this would not be fair. By withholding this information you may be setting-up programs and clients for failure. Your willingness to share the process and its results demonstrates your good will and helps referral agencies gain trust in your assessment.


1.38 Effective Interviewing Skills

Notes:

The assessment interview may be one of the first interactions that a participant has with a staff person. This also may be the staff person’s first opportunity to take advantage of encouraging positive behavioral changes by employing good interviewing techniques. In this way, one of the most important objectives of the interview is that the staff person establishes rapport with the individual so that they may collect the information for a valid and reliable assessment.Ultimately, the staff person is setting the tone for all future interactions - their desk should be free of clutter and other distractions and it should be kept in mind that sensitive and/or personal information will likely be discussed with the participant during the interview process. While keeping safety considerations in mind, the environment for such an interview should be conducive for questions. If the individual is within earshot of other people, they may be less likely to disclose pertinent information to assist with the completion of the interview.While interviewing the participant, current situations should be the main focus, rather than things that occurred in the past. It is important to remember that when we focus on historical data, we lose the dynamic aspect of the assessment. In addition, we should remember that the main goal of the interview process is to gather facts and other information about the client. Interviewers should remain patient, non-judgmental, open-minded and attentive. The interview process is not the time to try to correct, teach or lecture. If the client feels like the interviewer is judging them, they will not be forthcoming with the essential information that needs to be gathered.It is good practice to discuss the purpose of the assessment before beginning the interview process. Doing this gives the participant an opportunity to understand the goals of the assessment and to ask any questions he or she might have. Sharing what your agency or facility takes into consideration when making referrals to services or when developing a supervision plan, can also help with getting participant buy-in.


1.39 Effective Interviewing Skills

Notes:

When conducting the interview, it is very important to not only pay attention to the client, but also to be mindful of what we as interviewers are doing. Be aware of nonverbal attending, including posture, eye contact and facial expressions. The client is providing sensitive information and how the interviewer reacts may impact their responses. Also important are listening skills. More specifically, it is important to use reflective listening and to paraphrase what the participant says- this reinforces to the participant that you are interested and understand what they have to say. How the interviewer poses questions is also crucial during this process. The participant should do most of the talking, so it is instructive that the interviewer asks open-ended questions and follow-up questions that will get the client to elaborate and provide more information to use for scoring out the instrument. On the other hand, the interviewer should avoid asking close-ended questions that will give them only yes and no type answers -- for example “do you smoke pot?” does not leave room for a lot of discussion. The interviewer should also avoid double-barreled questions that ask multiple questions at the same time - for example how do you get along with your mom and your dad?” can be confusing if the offender gets along with one parent, but not the other. In this sense, questions should be focused on one specific person, object, or setting. Finally, the interviewer should also avoid biased questions where the answer is implied in the question. For example, “you don’t get along with your brother, right?” may lead the individual to not answer as honestly as if the question was asked differently, such as “Tell me about the relationship you have with your brother.”During the course of the interview, the individual may self-report information that is incongruent with the case record. For example, criminal history is minimized or drug abuse is denied. Motivational interviewing provides the interviewer with the tools to gather additional information, deal with difficult interview situations, and complete a thorough assessment. Motivational interviewing can also help resolve situations where inconsistent information is presented. It is suggested that the interviewer lightly challenge inconsistent information and/or if the client appears to be agitated or uneasy during the interview, the interviewer should offer them a break or provide different choices or options- such as finishing the interview the next time they meet with the client-to make them feel more comfortable.


1.40 Section 6 Review of Learning Objectives

Notes:

At the beginning of this presentation, we stated that this module would cover the following topics: how assessments have developed historically; why assessment and classification are important; understand the correlates of criminal behavior; review the importance of risk, need, responsivity, and professional discretion; identify which tools are appropriate for your agency or facility and why re-assessment is important; and discuss other considerations related to implementation. We will now do a quick review of the objectives to summarize the materials presented here.


1.41 Review of Learning Objectives

Notes:

The criminal justice system is dynamic and ever-changing. Assessment and classification systems have done the same thing. First-generation risk-assessments were based on clinical judgements and intuition. This led to a shift from clinical judgments to second-generation risk assessments. These actuarial assessment instruments were better at predicting criminal behavior than professional judgement, but were based primarily on static factors. Third-generation risk assessments added dynamic risk factors and were guided by risk and needs of the participant. Fourth-generation risk assessments are designed to be integrated into the development of supervision plans, intervention approaches and targets for treatment.



Notes:

Assessment and classification place participants into categories based off of risk and are used at various points in the system. Risk assessment and classification provides information that can help reduce bias in decision making processes when it comes to participants. By utilizing the scores of risk assessments, we can improve the placement of participants for treatment and security, and better utilize valuable resources.



Notes:

The factors correlated with criminal conduct are known as risk factors. Risk specifies that supervision and treatment levels should match the participant’s level of risk. Major risk factors for criminal recidivism include antisocial/procriminal attitudes, procriminal associates, negative temperament, history of antisocial behavior, family factors, low education or vocational skills, low levels of involvement in prosocial leisure activities and a history of substance abuse.



Notes:

The risk principle tells us “who” to target. The risk principle stipulates that participants should be matched to supervision level and treatment based on their level of risk. In practice, this means that low-risk participants should receive less supervision and services, and higher-risk participants should receive more intensive supervision and services.The need principle tells us “what” to target. Interventions and programs should target criminogenic, or crime producing needs in high risk participants.The responsivity principle tells us “how” to target. Cognitive behavioral interventions are most effective at reducing recidivism. Empirical research has indicated that programs and agencies that adhere to this process-that is assigning participants to supervision and services based on risk and need-are more effective in reducing recidivism than those programs and agencies that practice a “one-size-fits-all” approach.Professional judgement considers “special cases” as an opportunity to override risk scores. Overrides will increase if you have a specialized caseload such as sex offenders or participants with severe mental health problems. Overrides should occur 10% of the time or less. If you override a score, an additional specialized assessment should be administered.



Notes:

Assessments identify the dynamic risk factors; this indicates that participants can change. Assessments can be administered throughout different phases within the criminal justice system. A participant’s overall risk level can be reduced or increased; therefore is it important to re-assess the participant. For example, participants can be re-assessed upon completion of a supervision plan, long-term treatment, if the individual has committed a new crime or if the individual has experienced a life changing event. Re-assessments provide information that can be utilized by agencies to allocate resources and staff more effectively.



Notes:

There are various tasks involved in conducting an assessment. It is more than just sitting with a participant and asking questions and making a determination on risk level. Prior to conducting interviews, file reviews and self-reports should be completed. Collateral information can be used to support information gathered in the interview. Sources of collateral information include interviews completed with family, previous supervising officers, teachers or anyone that may have had contact with your client. One of the most important things to remember is to use the scoring guide when scoring the assessments. A scoring guide will tell you how to formally score out the tool.When conducting the interview, it is very important to not only pay attention to our client, but also pay attention to nonverbal cues we are projecting throughout the interview. Motivational interviewing provides you with tools to gather additional information, deal with difficult interview situations, and complete a thorough assessment.


1.47 Thank You

Notes:

This concludes our module on Assessment and Classification. Thank you so much for your interest and participation. We hope you find this information helpful to your work.


articulate word output - nys division of criminal justice ... · web viewfactors such as the zip...

Documents