VOLUME 46, NUMBER 2 THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERIC AN PROBA TION AND P AROLE A SSOCIA TION RISK NEED ASSESSMENT 3 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION This Perspectives issue on risk-needs assessments contains excellent articles. Accurate assessment of the risk and needs of each individual under supervision is a core need for community supervision staff. Needless to say, the tools I used as a parole officer are not at all acceptable today. I expanded my knowledge as I read through each of the articles for this journal. As noted by some of the authors, decades have passed since standardized tools were developed to assess risk and needs, and our experience using them has given us an ability to see both their merits and shortfalls. That includes opening our eyes to the need to adapt “off the shelf” tools to truly fit specific local communities, making them more pertinent and valuable. That also includes understanding how utilizing the Impaired Driving Assessment to supplement standard RNR tools is beneficial. One area where assessment tools need to be fine-tuned, both in design and how they are used, involves ridding them of any bias regarding assessment of marginalized, underprivileged, disadvantaged, or people of color. Fairness is the aim, and we must be ever vigilant in our efforts to achieve that goal. It is heartening to know that so many people care about this issue and strive to produce tools and procedures that make treatment and support within the criminal justice system less biased and more equitable. Yet another important topic is increasing the communication component within the risk-needs assessment process— particularly optimizing communication with those under supervision regarding the measurements process in a way that lessens the focus on risks and engages them, hopefully broadening their perspective and increasing their buy-in. The crucial role of the parole officer in communication is explained, along with suggestions on constructive communication strategies that delve into the micro-processes of language and interactions, as well as recommendations regarding the use of effective graphics to convey what a risk score means. All in all, these efforts have the potential to give community corrections staff who have not embraced all aspects of the risk-needs assessment process a greater understanding. One of the articles mentions how newer algorithms can “squeeze more juice” out of data. What an excellent image! Having tools that are more pertinent and useful and using them as a doorway to better—and empowering—communication with those on supervision is a win-win, giving all concerned the wings to fly. As always, I am extremely appreciative and proud of the writers as well as the editors and all other volunteers for contributing to such rich discussions that will yield nothing less than enhancements to the vitally important work of community corrections. VERONICA CUNNINGHAM, M.S. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CEO CEO’s message4 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 1 Risk assessment instruments have become a mainstay in the corrections field and for good reason. Our history of relying on an individual’s gut feelings and perceptual shortcuts has led us down a path of disparate outcomes for people of color, women, LGBTQIA population, people who have been convicted of sex offenses, people who use violence, and younger people to name a few. In nearly every meta-analysis comparing the validity of standardized, actuarial assessments to professional judgement, science wins out. In fact, when you aggregate the effectiveness of system decision makers ability to measure risk to reoffend, without the benefit of an actuarial assessment, the group does not improve much beyond chance. Of course, there are individual decision makers that are better than others, but as Dr. Ed Latessa used to say, not everyone is a good watermelon thumper. Actuarial assessments provide a structured way in which information is processed across decision makers, ensuring that each decision maker weighs the information similarly and does not infuse implicit or explicit bias into the measurement of risk. If you’re not sure about how important a structured assessment is, just ask five of your colleagues what is the singularly, most important predictors of new criminal behavior. One of them will probably say peers, another attitudes, and third employment. All three are correct. All three of these are consistently identified as risk factors for engaging in new criminal behavior, but which is right as to the importance of the specific risk factor. This is a perfect example of why we need to use structured risk assessments to help balance the opinions of individual decision makers. While risk assessments in their current form are better than individual decision making, that does not make them above reproach either. We must continue to challenge ourselves to move the field forward, working to improve the tools we use, ensuring they are valid for all subpopulations, lead to better decision making, and are locally operationalized to ensure maximum benefit. This edition of Perspectives brings five articles together that challenges us to think about the role of risk assessment, how they are developed, implemented, how the results are shared with the people being assessed, and ultimately, the importance of ensuring that assessments are used in ways that improve diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. As a field, we are far from perfect in understanding the measurement of risk. We have come a long way in the past 30 years. I imagine over the next 30 years we will continue to evolve in our ability to assess the drivers of recidivism and help people move towards success. But for this to happen, we need to spend our energy and resources on creating better models that produce ways to mitigate the biased and disparate histories of our system, ultimately producing more equitable approaches to success. board president’s message BRIAN LOVINS, Ph.D BOARD PRESIDENT5 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION Assessment is a fundamental piece of the Evidence- based Practices puzzle. The Perspectives audience would be hard-pressed to find any version of correctional principles that does not include the actuarial assessment of risk and needs as a cornerstone. Without accurate determinations of risk and needs, corrections agency staff are unable to use their limited resources effectively. When agencies are unable to use their resources effectively, they are unable to reduce recidivism and address client needs to the degree that corrections science promises. Indeed, assessment is an essential starting point of identifying effective interventions. We devote this issue of Perspectives to examining recent advances in this topic. The National Institute of Corrections recently commissioned a paper on best practices in risk and need assessment. Two articles feature components of this paper. In the first, titled “The Future is Now: Establishing State of the Art Standards in Risk Needs Assessments (RNA)”, the authors (Dr. Bret Bucklen, PA Department of Corrections; Dr. Grant Duwe, Minnesota Department of Corrections; and former Perspectives Co-Editor Dr. Faye Taxman, George Mason University) of the paper provide us with a summary version. The second, “Talking about the Way We Talk: Understanding Assessment Tool Communications to Improve Core Correctional Practices” by current Perspectives Co- Editor Dr. Kim Kras (University of San Diego), Dr. Shannon Magnuson (Justice System Partners), and Dr. Faye Taxman hones in on an often-overlooked aspect of assessment best practice—communicating assessment processes and results to clients. We feel this focus will help practitioners use assessments in ways that to go beyond mere resource allocation to support better understanding by clients. The superiority of assessments over clinical judgment alone with regard to accuracy is well-established in the literature. Intuitively, it seems much more likely that structured decision-making will produce less-biased results than unstructured decision-making. Even so, the focus on bias in assessment is a topic of contemporary concern. Janis Bane examines problematic policies in this regard related to risk-assessment with a focus on the pre-sentence intercept in a piece called “Observations on Risk Assessment and Racial Equity.” She concludes by imploring the corrections industry to do better in regard to developing, adopting, and implementing risk and need tools. We agree, and we take comfort in knowing that there are promising practices that can help us to do just that. To this end, we are pleased to present an article, “Modernizing Needs Assessments,” by Baylee Allen, Addison Kobie, and Dr. Zachary Hamilton. In addition to exploring the relationship between dynamic needs and static risk, the authors provide a discussion of the statistical methods used to identify bias in assessment and consequently how to mitigate it. We thank Perspectives editorial board members Katie Meyer, David Sattler, and Mark Stodola for their efforts in assembling this issue. Katie led the effort of this team, and they did a notable job of attaining excellent content. Additionally, Mark led an initiative to survey how agencies use assessments. Albeit informal, the findings of this effort are intriguing. We think that our audience will be interested in seeing where they and their respective agencies stand in relation to their peers. Despite their flaws, the evolution of risk and need assessments suggests promise for the future. As risk and need assessments are essential in our endeavors to create safer communities through reduced recidivism and addressing individual’s areas of need, the future of these tools is in progress toward resolving the critiques about them. As we continue to improve, we hope that you fully utilize the assessments available to you in ways that optimize their utility and offer the most accurate and least biased results. editor’s notes JASON STAUFFER ASSESSMENT AND CLASSIFICATION SERVICES SUPERVISOR, TREATMENT SERVICES DIVISION, BUREAU OF REENTRY COORDINATION, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS KIMBERLY R. KRAS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY6 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 1 Perspectives disseminates information to the American Probation and Parole Association’s members on relevant policy and program issues and provides updates on activities of the Association. The membership represents adult and juvenile probation, parole, and community corrections agencies throughout the United States and abroad. Articles submitted for publication are screened by an editorial committee and, on occasion, selected reviewers, to determine acceptability based on relevance to the field of criminal justice, clarity of presentation, or research methodology. Perspectives does not reflect unsupported personal opinions. Articles must be emailed to in accordance with the following deadlines: • Unless previously discussed with the editors, submissions should not exceed 12 typed pages, numbered consecutively, and double-spaced. All charts, graphs, tables, and photographs must be of reproduction quality. Optional titles may be submitted and selected after review with the editors. • All submissions must be in English and in American Psychological Association (APA) Style. • Authors should provide a one-paragraph biography, along with contact information. • Notes should be used only for clarification or substantive comments, and should appear at the end of the text. • References to source documents should appear in the body of the text with the author’s surname and the year of publication in parentheses, e.g., to (Mattson, 2015, p. 73). • Alphabetize each reference at the end of the text using the following format: • Mattson, B. (2015). Technology supports decision making in health and justice. Perspectives, 39(4), 70-79. • Hanser, R. D. (2014). Community corrections (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. While the editors of Perspectives reserve the right to suggest modifications to any contribution, all authors will be responsible for, and given credit for, final versions of articles selected for publication. Submissions will not be returned to contributors. instructions to authors Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Advocate Program, Inc American Correctional Association Chief Probation Officers of CA Confederation of European Probation Correctional Management Institute County Chief Adult Probation and Parole Officers Association of PA Crime Prevention Coalition of America / National Crime Prevention Council Dismas Charities, Inc. Franklin County Municipal Court Hidalgo County CSCD IJIS Institute Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision Lake County Adult Probation Maricopa County Adult Probation Middle Atlantic States Correctional Association MN Association of Community Corrections Act Counties MN Association of County Probation Officers National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies National Association of Probation Executives NC Probation & Parole Association New York State Probation Officers Association New Zealand Association of Probation Officers Paula J. Keating Consulting Pine County Probation Probation and Community Corrections Officers Association Probation Association of New Jersey Probation Officers Association of Wielkopolska Probation Officers Professional Association of IN Saratoga County Probation Department SC Probation and Parole Association Successful Reentry WV Association of Probation Officers affiliate members7 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION feat ures departments PRODUCTION STAFF Veronica Cunningham Editor in Chief Kimberly Kras Perspectives Co-Editor Jason Stauffer Perspectives Co-Editor Megan Foster Production Coordinator Mariah Dunn Desktop Publisher APPA DIRECTORY APPA Main (859) 244-8204 Publication Orders (859) 244-8204 General Training Institute (859) 244-8204 Information Clearinghouse (859) 244-8204 Membership (859) 244-8204 Request for Training (859) 244-8206 Resource Expo (859) 244-8206 Advertising (859) 244-8206 Grants/TA (859) 244-8236 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Brian Lovins President Susan Rice President-Elect Marcus Hodges Vice President Tom Gregory Treasurer Audrey Rigsbee Secretary Tim Hardy Immediate Past President Scott Taylor Second Past President Isabel Perez-Morina Affiliate Representative Tania Appling Member At-Large Representative Alyza Gonzalez Line Staff Representative Herb Sinkinson Region 1 Representative Corinne Brisco Region 2 Representative Dena Davis Region 3 Representative Gene Cotter Region 4 Representative LaTasha Jones Region 5 Representative Veronica Cunningham Executive Director/CEO Communications should be addressed to: American Probation and Parole Association c/o The Council of State Governments 1776 Avenue of the States, Lexington, KY, 40511 Fax: (859) 244-8001, Website: Perspectives is published four times annually by the American Probation and Parole Association through its secretariat office in Lexington, Kentucky. ISSN 0821-1507 Reprint permission. Direct requests for permission to use material published in Perspectives in writing to © 2022 The Council of State Governments CO-CHAIRS JASON STAUFFER Assessment and Classification Services Supervisor, Treatment Services Division, Bureau of Reentry Coordination Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 1920 Technology Parkway Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Phone: (717) 361-4300 KIMBERLY R. KRAS, PHD, San Diego State University Department of Criminal Justice School of Public Affairs 5500 Campanile Drive San Diego, CA 92182 Phone: (619) 594-1158 BOARD MEMBERS: Eileen Ahlin, PhD, Penn State Harrisburg Ansley Dille, Utah Administrative Office of the Courts Lauren Duhaime, Bureau of Justice Assistance/George Mason University Phillip Galli, University of Wisconsin-River Falls Lily Gleicher, PhD, Robina Institute/DePaul University Shelley Johnson, PhD, University of North Carolina Charlotte Jennifer Lanterman, PhD, University of Nevada Reno Sarah Manchak, PhD, University of Cincinnati Katie Meyer, CAIS/JAIS Program Manager Carrie Ross, Yavapai County Adult Probation David Sattler, Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts Reveka Shteynberg, PhD, California State University San Bernardino Renea Snyder, Public Health Advisor Mark Stodola, NHTSA Probation Fellow David Taylor, Montgomery County (OH) Probation Reyna Cartagena Vasquez, CSOSA Jill Viglione, PhD, University of Central Florida Melissa Waldock, Kansas Department of Corrections Susan Wright, Pennsylvania Counseling Services editorial board The American Probation and Parole Association is an affiliate of and receives its secretariat services from The Council of State Governments (CSG). CSG, the multibranch association of the states and U.S. territories, works with state leaders across the nation and through its regions to put the best ideas and solutions into practice.9 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION CoreCivic Shannon Carst, Managing Director 5501 Virginia Way, Ste 110, Brentwood, TN 37027 Phone: 303-842-8301 Email: Website: Corrisoft Susan Harrod, VP, Sales & Marketing Corrisoft 1648 McGrathiana Pkwy, Suite 225 Lexington, KY 40511 Phone: (217) 899.5323 Email: Website: Corrections Software Solutions James Redus, President 316 North Lamar Street, Austin, TX 78703 Phone: (512) 347.1366 Fax: (512) 347.1310 Email: Website: Geo Care Monica Hook, Marketing Communications Director 621 NW 53rd Street, Suite 700 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Phone: (800) 241.2911 x 1230 Email: Website: Intoxalock Linda Vadel, Affiliate Marketing Coordinator 11035 Aurora Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50322 Phone: (515) 251.3747 Email: Website: Journal Technologies Heidi Henry Senior Account Executive Micro Distributing Roy G. Whiteside, Jr., Vice President Micro Distributing II, Ltd. PO Box 1753, 620 Kennedy Court Belton, TX 76513 Primary: (254) 939-8923 Office: (254) 939-5867 Email: Website: Management and Training Corporation (MTC) Alisa Malone Director, Partnerships 500 N. Marketplace Drive Centerville, UT 84014 Primary:(801) 693-2600 Email: Website: American Community Corrections Institute Trevor Lloyd, President American Community Corrections Institute Phone: 435 767-9658 Website: Acivilate Louise Wasilewski, CEO Acivilate, Inc. 75 5th Street NW, Suite 2310, Atlanta, GA 30308 Phone: 678.662.6465 Website: Attenti Kerri Ryan, Director of Marketing and Business Development 1838 Gunn Highway, Odessa, FL 33556 Phone: (813) 749.5454 x 1275 Website: averhealth Justin Manni, Director of Business Development 1700 Bayberry Court, Suite 105 Richmond, VA 23226 Phone: (848) 992.3650 Website: Axon Zach Austin, Director of Sales, Corrections 17800 North 85th Street, Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Primary: (917) 789-0916 Website: Buddhi Kyle Chapin Director of Account Management Buddi US, LLC 1964 Bayshore Blvd., Suite B, Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (727) 560-8432 The Change Companies Jesse Tillotson, National Director of Justice Services The Change Companies 5221 Sigstrom Dr, Carson City, NV 89706 Phone: (888)889-8866 Website: Cordico Brady Pilster, Director of Business Development 2377 Gold Meadow Way, Suite 100 Gold River, CA 95670 Phone: (844) 267-3426 Website: Corporations with an interest in the field of probation, parole, and community corrections are invited to become APPA corporate members. Corporate members receive benefits such as enhanced visibility among APPA’s international network of community corrections professionals, as well as shared information on the latest trends and issues that specifically affect community corrections. CORPORATE MEMBER appa corporate membersNext >