jfa associates/the institute, washington, dc/austin, texas risk assessment facts, myths and trends...

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas

Risk Assessment

Facts, Myths and Trends

James Austin, Ph.D.

2008

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 2

The Need to Manage Risk

• Public Safety – Reduce Recidivism Rates and Allows for Better Investments

• Increases Credibility with the Public and Legislature

• Reduces the potential for disproportionate use of incarceration by Gender, Race and Ethnicity

• Better use of public resources


The Key Decision Points

1. Initial Parole Eligibility Hearinga. Paroleb. Continue (why and for how long)c. “Serve All”

2. Rehearing (more of the initial hearing)

3. Mandatory Parole

4. Imposition of Supervision Conditions

5. Parole Revocationa. Detain or Releaseb. Period of Incarceration


Sources

• Statistics and Trends -- Bureau of Justice Statistics, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#Prisoners

• Research -- National Institute of Justice, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/

• Technical Assistance – National Institute of Corrections

• Program Money and TA – Bureau of Justice Assistance, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bja/


Adult Correctional Populations 1980-2005

Population 1980 2005 % Change

Probation 1,118,097 4,162,536 272%

Jail 163,994 747,529 359%

Prison 329,821 1,446,269 339%

Parole 220,438 784,408 256%

Total Adults Under Corrections 1,832,350 7,056,000 285%

Adult Population 162.8 Million 214.8 million 32%

% of Adults Under Corrections 1.1% 3.3% 188%


Past and Current Projected Prisoner Population


Key Concepts in The Prediction of Risk

1. Variance

2. Probabilities

3. Independent Variables – The Predictors

4. Dependent Variable – What We Are Trying to Predict

5. Static Predictors – Things That Do Not Change

6. Dynamic Predictors – Things That Do Change


Variance in the Use of Imprisonment


Variance in the Use of Probation and Parole


Variance in Life Chances of Being Imprisoned in USA1974-2001

1974 1991 2001

Total 1.9% 5.2% 6.6%

Males

White 3.6% 9.1% 11.3%

Black 13.4% 29.4% 32.2%

Hispanic 4.0% 16.3% 17.2%

Females 0.3% 1.1% 1.8%

White 0.2% 0.5% 0.9%

Black 1.1% 3.6% 5.6%

Hispanic 0.4% 1.5% 2.2%


Variance in Key Criminal Justice Decision Points

Racial Group

Population Offender Arrested Convicted Prison/Jail

White 75% 64% 69% 54% 39%

Black 12% 25% 29% 44% 47%


Variance in Average Sentences and Time ServedBy Race – 2002 Prison Releases

Offense Group

White Black

Sentence Time Served

Sentence Time Served

All Offenses 63 mos 27 mos 69 mos 32 mos

Violent 85 mos 45 mos 95 mos 53 mos

Property 56 mos 22 mos 58 mos 25 mos

Drug 61 mos 19 mos 64 mos 23 mos

Public Order 44 mos 18 mos 45 mos 21 mos

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Correctional Reporting Program 2002


Indicator White Black

Married 57% 35%

Less than High School Degree 11% 21%

Unemployed 5% 11%

Under $25,000 Income 26% 39%

Below Poverty Level 8% 23%

Under 18 years 10% 30%

Central City Residence 21% 52%

Residence Ownership 83% 53%

Variance in Crime Risk Factors by Race


7,000.0

CCrime and rime and WWelfare 1931-2003elfare 1931-2003

6,000.0

5,000.0

4,000.0

3,000.0

2,000.0

1,000.0

0.0

Cri

me R

ate

16,000.0

14,000.0

12,000.0

10,000.0

8,000.0

6,000.0

4,000.0

2,000.0

0.0

Welf

are

Recip

ien

ts

Year


More Key Concepts on Risk

• Measurement Error Triangulation (Multiple Sources) Public Records Interviews Questionnaires Observation

• Reliability Inter-Reliability (Do we all do it the same way) Intra-Reliability (Do I do it the same way)

• Validity Internal Validity (does it work in my place) External Validy (does it also work in other places)


Still More Concepts

• An Instrument Can Be Reliable but Not Valid

• An Instrument Cannot Be Unreliable and Valid

• False Positives (should have recidivated but did not)

• False Negatives (should have not recidivated but did)

• Multi-collinearity (independent predictors)


And More Concepts

• Clinical Judgments Alone Are In-Effective in Predicting Risk

• Statistical Models Are Effective In Predicting General Recidivism

• Statistical Models Are In-Effective in Predicting “Rare Events”

1. Violent Crimes

2. Career Criminals

3. Sex Crimes

• The Problem of “Low” Base Rates


Current State of Risk Assessment

• There is no superior or better risk assessment instrument or system

• There are commercial and public risk systems that can work

• The differences are in costs and staff skill requirements

• Few states have risk assessment systems that have been properly developed and implemented

• Lack of reliability and validity


Some Basics About Criminal Behavior

• Criminal Behavior (Like Other Behavior) Is Learned

• Criminal Careers Have Starting And Ending Points

• Most Criminal Behavior is Episodic in Nature

• Very Few “Criminals” Are Career Criminals

• Places and Other People Impact Behavior


What About Treatment?

1. Good treatment in prison is rare

2. The “market share” problem

3. Most one can expect is 10% reduction in the expected recidivism rate

4. Education and vocational training should be priorities

5. Wrong Use of Treatment Increases Risk


Percent of Arrests Attributed to Released Prisoners

Type of arrests N %

Total Arrests in Seven States 1994-97 2,994,868 100%

Arrests of Prison Releases 1994-97 140,534 5%

Percent that are Violent Crimes 36,000 1%


1983 and 1994 Recidivism Rates

Recidivism

Measures

1983 Prison Releases

1994 Prison Releases

Re-Arrested 63% 69%

Re-Convicted 47% 47%

Re-Imprisoned

41% 40% – 52%


Method of Release and Re-Arrest

Re-Arrest

Rate

Unconditional

Releases

Mandatory

Releases

Discretionary Paroles

Unadjusted 62% 61% 54%

Adjusted 61% 61% 57%


Success on Parole and Probation – 1995-2003

Probation Parole

Successful Completions

1995 62% 45%

2000 60% 43%

2003 59% 47%

Reason for Failures

Re-incarcerated

New Conviction/Sentence 5% 11%

Revocation 7% 26%

Other 4% 0%

Absconded 4% 9%

Other 22% 6%


Length and Stay and Recidivism - Louisiana

Length of Stay in Prison Releases % Return to Prison

Return With New Charge

Up to 6 months 2,844 20.1% 36.1% 20.2%

6 to 12 months 2,724 19.3% 36.7% 17.9%

12 to 24 months 3,351 23.7% 39.0% 14.8%

24 to 48 months 2,614 18.5% 39.5% 16.6%

48 months or more 1,062 7.5% 32.4% 13.7%


The Impact of Treatment by Risk Level

Level of Treatment

Study Risk Level Minimal Intensive

O’Donnell et al (1971)

Low 16% 22%

High 78% 56%

Baird et al (1979) Low 3% 10%

High 37% 18%

Andrews & Kiessling (1980)

Low 12% 17%

High 58% 31%

Bonta et al (2000) Low 15% 32%

High 51% 32%D.A. Andrews and James Bonta. 2003. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (3rd ed.). Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing. p. 260.


Key Points About Offender Risk

• Prisoners are slowing down or ending their criminal activities

• Probation versus prison is slightly more effective

• Extending or reducing prison terms is not related to recidivism

• Extending or Reducing parole/probation supervision is not related to recidivism

• Prisoners who “max out” do better than those paroled

• Small Percent (5%-10%) of all crimes are committed to persons released from prison.

• Very small % of released prisoners are re-arrested for murder or rape (less than 1%) and very small % of released murders or rapists are re-arrested for these crimes (under 2%).

• Treatment for Low Risk Persons Increases Recidivism while treatment for high risk persons reduces recidivism


Factors that Predict

Static Factors

Age at First Arrest

Gender

Prior Supervision Failures (recent)

Mental Health Problems

Crimes of Economic Gain

Substance Abuse History

Prior Gang/Peer Associations

Dynamic Factors

Current Age

Current Education Level

Current Employment

Marital/Family Status

Gang/Peers Associations

Residency

Treatment (Good versus Bad)

Institutional Conduct


Vermont Risk Level Results

Risk N % Recidivism Rate

Low 151 23% 26%

Moderate 293 45% 49%

High 200 31% 67%


Kentucky Parole Board Risk Assessment Decision by Risk

Risk Level Cases Heard Grant Rate

Level I (0-6 pts) 1,475 45.7 Level II (7-11 pts) 4,754 37.0 Level III (12-14 pts) 1,522 29.3 Level IV (15+ pts) 183 18.6

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas

Kentucky Parole Board Risk Assessment Decision by Offense Severity

Offense Severity Cases Heard Grant Rate

Low 2,394 42.7 Moderate 2,335 35.9 High 2,759 34.4 Highest 445 21.0

32

Texas Expected Levels of Parole Grants

Offense Severity Class

RISK LEVEL

Highest(12+)

High(9-11)

Moderate(6-8)

Low(0-5)

Highest0-5%

15-15%

25-15%

216-25%

3

High5-15%

216-25%

321-35%

421-35%

4

Moderate5-15%

221-35%

436-50%

551-75%

6

Low16-25%

321-35%

451-75%

676-100%

7

33

Texas FY 06 Actual Versus Expected Grant Rates

Guideline Expected Actual

1 0%-5% 3%

2 6%-15% 13%

3 16%-25% 17%

4 26%-35% 20%

5 36%-50% 33%

6 51%-75% 41%

7 76%-100% 48%


Do’s and Don’ts

• Must Be Tested On the Your Correctional Population

• Must Conduct Objective and Independent Inter-Reliability and Validity Tests

• Must Allow for Dynamic and Static Factors that Have Been Well

Accepted and Tested in a Number of Jurisdictions

• Must Be Compatible With the Staff’s Skill Level

• Must Be an Opportunity to Depart from Scored Risk Levels Based on a System of Structured Clinical Judgments

• Must Have “Face Validity” with Staff, Offenders and Policy Makers


Strategic Steps for Building Risk Assessment Instrument

Agree on the Need for Risk Assessment

Conduct Recidivism Study of Released Prisoners

Build Risk Instrument Based on Recidivism

Conduct Reliability Study

Implement/Monitor

Finalize Risk Instrument


Summary Points

• You cannot afford not to use risk assessment in release and supervision decisions

• Not using risk assessment worsens public safety• Key Areas of Concern

1. Imposition of treatment and conditions to low risk prisoners 2. Excessive periods of supervision (more than 12 months)3. Re-incarceration for non-criminal behavior or misdemeanor crimes4. Excessive periods of confinement – the diminishing return problem

• The release decision• The revocation decision

5. The lack of information and its contribution to mythology• DUIs• Sex Offenders• Public safety

6. Gender and Racial Bias

jfa associates/the institute, washington, dc/austin, texas risk assessment facts, myths and trends...

Documents

jfa associatesthe institute

parole slide

national institute of

use of imprisonment

period of incarceration

texas risk assessment

bureau of justice statistics

parole revocation