< Previous30 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 2 RISK NEED ASSESSMENT compliance with supervision conditions. Morash and colleagues’ study of women on probation (2016) found that those who were supervised by officers with an adversarial style experienced greater anxiety and lower self-efficacy than those with positive styles. Morash and colleagues (2018) also found that collaborating with individuals to understand their goals and then centering those goals in the case plan improved individual’s perceptions of the relationship with their officer. While most researchers and practitioners acknowledge the importance of good communication skills among corrections staff, the specific strategies for how to discuss assessment results with individuals is far more underdeveloped than in other disciplines. This is a direct result of assessment developers (both academic and for-profit companies) not prioritizing communication and translation in their training, implementation, and fidelity assessments. As criminologists continue to evolve actuarial assessment tools, it is their responsibility to also consider how staff best understand, use, and talk about their tools–and to provide training to agencies and their staff for doing so. In other disciplines using actuarial assessments, like public health, researchers have long understood the importance of successfully communicating test results and, specifically, contextualizing risk for disease or negative health outcomes (Glik, 2007). Researchers in these spaces note that effective communication establishes and facilitates a more meaningful doctor-patient relationship. There is an obvious parallel in the experiences of those on community supervision. This parallel suggests that communicating how an individual’s past behaviors can impact their likelihood of success on community supervision is as important as discussing adverse health outcomes to patients. Importantly, in both public health and legal system settings using actuarial tools, proper communication can provide individuals agency and power in their journey. In a 2021 National Institute of Justice publication, Bucklen and colleagues argue that a core component of effective assessment practice includes (actuarial) risk communication.1 However, using proper communication tools and techniques requires staff to understand the information and translate it properly, lessening the potential for discrepancy and bias that comes with conflating actuarial and perceived risk. For instance, “When there is a discrepancy between how staff perceive a person’s risk behaviors and the individual’s perception of their own risk, it may be partly due to the power imbalance that comes from not sharing information” (Bucklen et al., 2021, p. 25). This suggests that when staff communicate effectively, they provide individuals information capital and lessen the power differential inherent in the officer-individual dynamic. With more information capital, individuals can then make more informed decisions and understand where they have more agency in their experience. As such, Bucklen and colleagues (2021) contend researchers and practitioners should consider assessment communication as much a part of effective assessment practice as completing the tool itself. The inclusion of communication as an evidence- informed practice put forth by Bucklen and colleagues is an important step in advancing the functionality and impacts of assessing individuals. However, the emphasis on “risk communication” specifically emphasizes predictions of failure, reinforces stigma, and too easily conflates perceptions of “risky” and “bad” with researcher measurements of risk. Talking about how to properly communicate assessment results must name this tension and acknowledge that the concept of “risk” (actuarial or perceived) tempers how we can infuse concepts of equity, fairness, and dignity into communication strategies within community supervision. As a result, this article will not specifically describe how to effectively communicate risk, actuarial or perceived. We recognize that on its face excluding risk communication when talking about communicating assessment tools may appear at odds with EBP, given that the first principle of the Risk-Need- Responsivity model—and the foundation for many legal system tools and practices—is risk (Bonta & Andrews, 2007). Nonetheless, we will instead discuss how to communicate the assessment’s measured outcomes (e.g., arrest or successful completion of probation) more broadly and detail several other communication micro- processes when using an actuarial assessment tool. We believe assessment tools are critical for community supervision and are most highly effective when they 1. It should also be noted that the term “risk communication” has been applied in the sub-field of managing individuals convicted of sexual offenses. Here, the term refers to uniform communication of risk information (e.g., risk levels) between correctional agencies (Hilton et al. 2016) and not the specific communication with individuals. While Bucklen and colleagues (2021) refer to the consistency in language communicating risk levels among providers, they also highlight the importance of communicating with individuals.31 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION RISK NEED ASSESSMENT take on an equity approach by identifying individuals who need intervention and support the most. This is what we see as the true spirit of the risk principle in the RNR framework. As a result, we extend the call of Bucklen and colleagues (2021) to make assessment tool communication a defining feature of effectively “using” tools by describing a several opportunities for meaningful communication. Performing Assessments: The Micro-Processes of Assessment Communication The first steps community supervision staff take when they begin supervising a new case, reflecting the first two principles of the RNR model, are to assess which individuals need support and services, identify the specific services they need, and determine how best to intervene (National Institute of Corrections, n.d.; Bonta & Andrews, 2007). What is missing from this core practice is how best to administer the assessment and how to create action steps with assessment results. Research indicates that staff are using assessment tools in limited ways. For example, Miller and Maloney’s 2013 study of over 1,000 American Probation and Parole Association members found that nearly half of frontline officers reported formally complying with agency policy to complete an assessment tool but failed to incorporate the results from the tool into a case plan. Viglione and colleagues’ ethnographic study of probation officers in one state found the same type of “formal” policy compliance in which officers completed an assessment tool but did not incorporate the individual’s results into the case plan they then developed (Viglione et al., 2015). Previous research shows that case plans tend to emphasize court and general conditions of supervision (such as abstaining from substance use, obtaining employment) rather than the results of assessment tools (Thurman et al., 2019). Viglione and colleagues (2015) suggest the missed connection between the tool’s results and the case plan is related to staff’s lack of trust and belief in the tool’s ability to “accurately” assess individuals, as that assessment may contradict the officer’s cognitive shorthand about the individual and the officer’s perception about what that individual actually needs (perceived risk). Further, studies find that, regardless of the results, community supervision officers were most likely to target simpler criminogenic needs in their case plans (like leisure and employment) rather than complex needs like criminal personality, in part because of their lack of understanding about how these concepts are measured, how to talk about them, and how to address them (Magnuson et al., 2019; Viglione et al., 2015). Unpacking how to “use” actuarial assessments via several micro-processes may enhance staff’s understanding of the tools, allow staff to more effectively talk about the tools, and support individual’s understanding of how their results can translate into connections to resources and different choices. We think about micro-processes as the granular steps, or the process on a very small scale includes the language and interactions that someone undertakes in an activity. We propose the following framework (presented in Figure 1) to more effectively use assessment tools in the community supervision process and allow officers to bring individuals into the center of the process as early as the first interaction. At each stage we identify some of the core assumptions through the communication practice. 1. Staff acknowledge the past experiences of individuals and internalize the importance of effectively communicating to individuals. Proper assessment communication begins by communicating the importance of this activity to staff. Before we can do that, researchers and assessment developers/trainers must consider and include communication education as part of their training. This training must prioritize understanding the cultural context of the population as well as educating staff Acknowledge and Internalize Purpose of the Assessment Tool Administer: Casual & Conversational Discuss Level of Suppport Needed (Risk Calculation) Discuss Specific Supports (Need Calculation) How Results Inform Supervision Figure 1. The Assessment Communication Process 32 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 2 RISK NEED ASSESSMENT on adverse childhood experiences, neighborhood or community trauma, and intergenerational trauma. When staff understand the cultural context and how these experiences apply to the population on community supervision, they are better equipped to respond to their individual needs and characteristics– the core of the responsivity principle. Further, when staff understand these topics, they will better understand why the microprocesses are important to using the assessment tool. First, staff must acknowledge and internalize the following dimensions as central to the assessment process: a. Empowering the individual to make changes requires that an individual has knowledge of how they can succeed on community supervision. The staff member has the responsibility of effectively sharing this knowledge or information capital. b. Inaction by individuals does not equate to lack of motivation to make changes. Many individuals have a litany of barriers they face navigating systems to which they are referred by community supervision staff. Their previous personal experiences navigating those systems, or observing others navigate those systems, can contribute to cynicism or present as anxiety or worry they will not be successful. Centering individuals in their own community supervision journey decouples inaction from willingness and intention and at the same time acknowledges that social systems are as much at play in success as an individual’s own agency. The staff member has the responsibility of helping an individual through the situations where their agency is not enough. c. Centering individuals in the process requires acknowledging their past experiences. The current assessment process is likely not the first experience individuals are having with an assessment process in that jurisdiction. Acknowledging the length of questions, the intimacy of the questions, the potential for questions to trigger a trauma response, and the lack of continuity and communication between legal system agencies dignifies individuals. The staff member has the responsibility to supervise individuals with dignity. d. Increasing transparency is paramount to increasing fairness. Staff must acknowledge the power imbalance but be willing to provide some of that power to individuals by sharing assessment result information. Staff must recognize they have the power to require compliance, but their role instead should be to empower individuals. Sharing information capital and their lens for how they make decisions about individuals can improve equity and reduce bias. 2. Discuss the purpose of the assessment tool An overlooked aspect of the assessment process is explaining to the individual why and how the assessment will occur. This step is crucial for cuing the individual about what they can expect from the exchange with the officer. By explaining the purpose of performing an assessment, the officer can engage in rapport building, improve honesty and transparency in the exchange, allay worry or anxiety, and gather useful information. It also sets the tone for creating a space of healing through information gathering. Officers should consider how explaining the purpose of the assessment will: a. Provide the first opportunity for individual engagement, which will support individual understanding and engagement with the process and model empathy as early as possible. It also begins to lay the foundation for restorative practices if/when challenging information is encountered. b. Inform the supervision process, which is the key connection point identified by the research as being missed. By explaining how the assessment results connect to the overall supervision, including how the results inform frequency of meetings and case plan goals, the individual has a greater understanding of their responsibilities on supervision, rather than focusing on the things they cannot change (like static risk). 3. Administer the assessment tool in a casual and conversational style Prior research establishes the importance of positive interactional styles but does not isolate those styles in practice, especially during the assessment process. Officers should rely on a casual and conversational style in their use of tone, language, and demeanor, 33 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION RISK NEED ASSESSMENT creating an environment where individuals can feel safe and empowered to disclose information. An officer’s approach to administering the assessment should respond to: a. The individual’s known responsivity factors, like past trauma, language, literacy concerns, and gender identity, among others. b. The individual’s needs factors, including the prioritizing of survival needs like housing and food. If the staff member is aware of critical needs during the assessment, like lack of shelter or food insecurity, then they can shape the conversation knowing the individual may not be able to answer as fully as when those needs are met. c. The individual’s demeanor as the process unfolds— officers should be constantly perceiving and interpreting the individual’s reactions to questions and need for time to provide responses to questions in order to adapt their tone, language, and approach to match the individual’s emotional state. Staff can also use this information to determine whether the assessment conversation should happen in one meeting or be broken down over several meetings to better support the individual’s bandwidth to receive and understand the information. d. Their own tone and demeanor, which is a critical aspect of proper communication. Officers should constantly be reflecting on how their tone, language, delivery, responses and non-verbal cues like sitting position might impact the individual’s perceptions and experience of the process and disclosure of information. 4. Discuss how the tool identifies their level of support needed (current actuarial risk score) Officers must understand the outcome that their organization’s assessment measures (e.g., rearrest or successful completion of supervision), how developers measured this outcome, and how this measurement informs the output categories on the assessment tool (e.g., low risk or limited support needed). Organizations should work to develop staff understanding about: a. The outcome of interest and how it is calculated by the tool. For example, if the outcome of interest is risk of recidivism, staff should have a deep understanding of how developers specifically measure recidivism so they can discern between actuarial risk and perceived risk. Knowing exactly how the risk score is calculated, as provided by the RNA trainers, will help staff understand the nature of actuarial risk and what it means and does not mean. When officers have greater technical knowledge, this can lead to greater confidence translating the information to individuals. b. What the outcome means in the context of community supervision and their role as a supervision officer. Previously, we stated staff must internalize the idea that an individual’s agency is not enough to succeed on supervision and that systematic barriers can impede individual’s best efforts. If staff accept this dimension–and, importantly, acknowledge it to individuals—then a staff member’s role inherently includes helping individuals navigate through those barriers. When the assessment uses the outcome of success, or predicts an individual’s likelihood for success on supervision, then this more clearly aligns with this shared responsibility by staff. When staff understand they share responsibility, they can clearly articulate why an individual needs a specified level of support or frequency of contact. c. Using destigmatizing language when describing the outcome, shared responsibility, and scoring of assessment tools. This is likely one of the most critical micro-processes in the assessment activity because it is at this point where staff can introduce concepts of perceived risk into the conversation and negatively impact the individual’s perceptions of themselves and their ability to make different choices. 5. Discuss the needs calculation Similar to level of support, officers should know how their assessment tool calculates the need scores. When staff understand the technical aspects of the need domains, they are better equipped to translate this information and prioritize the most appropriate needs with individuals. Organizations should work to develop staff understanding about: a. How the assessment tool calculates the need scores to improve staff knowledge they can impart on the case planning process. This will also allow them to 34 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 2 RISK NEED ASSESSMENT explain why reassessment is important and why these need scores can change over time. Most importantly, unpacking the measurement helps to prevent staff from conflating needs with risk, and over subscribing how those need scores contribute to continued offending. b. What different needs means and being able to contextualize them in the in the scope of the individual’s current assessment to develop case plan goals and to respond appropriately to an individual’s circumstances. For example, understanding how an individual’s history of trauma or legal system involvement might impact their responses to other areas of need, such as substance use or mental health, will support the staff member in identifying the proper intervention, such as inpatient versus outpatient treatment services. c. Using destigmatizing language to discuss need scores, as individual’s past experiences and potential traumas impact their current scores. 6. Discuss how the assessment results will inform the time on supervision Once the assessment is complete, it is important to pause and reflect on the above micro-processes to ensure the discussion about how the results inform the supervision process is infused with caring, concern, and empathy, as well as positioning the strengths the person brings to the case planning process. Organizations should train staff in knowing how to: a. Develop the case plan and goals based on the more nuanced conversation the assessment process will bring. Organizations can train staff in a greater range of case planning strategies to attend to the complex situations they will encounter. b. Focus the case plan on what the individual wants first, and then include some of the needs identified by the assessment. By centering on the individual’s position and actively listening to what they want to work on, and, importantly, allowing them to decide what matters most in their experience, staff use their power to empower through choice and agency in the process. c. Ensure that the case plan is not overwhelming. Building a case plan that includes many goals addressing many identified needs may be too overwhelming for individuals presenting with an array of complex issues. This can lead to shutting down or resistance on the part of the individuals. Instead, the current case plan items may all reflect progress to same identified need and consist of steps that match the individual’s responsivity factors. It is crucial that individuals have the ability to shape case plan items in ways that are accessible and attainable. Likewise, if the individual is overwhelmed by the process generally and does not know where to begin, the staff member’s responsibility is to support building initial case plan items based upon the assessment knowledge and their growing knowledge of the individual’s circumstances. d. Follow-up conversations about how the information supports success on supervision. By centering success as the goal of supervision, not focusing on reducing risk, the communication can continue to empower individuals to process information. Importantly, researchers, developers and practitioners must recognize that these micro-processes may need to be altered even further depending on individual factors. It may be the case that an individual is not capable or ready to fully understand all the information provided by the assessment tool. Some individuals with neurocognitive disabilities, with limited literacy or cognitive bandwidth, or who are under extreme stress may not be positioned to understand or internalize this information, or receive it all at once. These situations highlight the responsivity principle and the importance of centering individuals to best meet individuals where they are. Thus, uniformly communicating results to individuals is misaligned with the responsivity principle and requires greater attention to tailoring the message to the individual. One potential solution, similar to medical therapeutic interventions, is to consider “micro-dosing” the information to an individual— that is, breaking down the results into smaller parts to better suit the individual’s ability to take in the information and prevent it from being overwhelming. An important feature of this process, and central to enhancing fairness and equity, is the emphasis on using destigmatizing and person-first language. It is widely understood that labels can have adverse long-term effects on both the psyche of individuals, as well as the structural and community barriers they face (Chiricos et al., 2007). Ensuring that the language spoken to individuals truly embodies a reflexive approach where 35 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION RISK NEED ASSESSMENT staff are constantly challenging their own biases and assumption will improve the equal treatment of individuals they serve. By acknowledging where discrimination can occur in these micro-processes and through our language and tone, staff can make adjustments and establish fair practices that recognize and respond to the complexity of people’s backgrounds. In this way, these specific language and delivery choices operationalize supervising individuals with dignity. Examples in the Assessment Micro- Process During our work together at the Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence (ACE!) at George Mason University, we had the opportunity to develop and deliver an in-depth training program to evidence-based practices (EBP) managers in a statewide agency. The training was unique in that, beyond the typical day-long seminars, each participant was paired with a researcher to perform a variety of “assignments” (i.e., mini research projects) in their jurisdictions. This not only brought the content to life, but also empowered the managers to assess their jurisdiction’s challenges with a particular policy or practice and implement solutions to resolve them. The genesis of our curiosity about the role of communicating assessment results to individuals emerged from fieldwork conducted by the second author, where officers were observed in the field struggling to convey the meaning of assessment scores to individuals. Further, these interactions were rife with discomfort. For example, as the officers attempted to gloss over the risk scores prominently featured on the report they shared, attempting to focus instead on needs (presumably because that conversation is easier and less awkward), it was apparent the individual was fixated on the risk results. The research study that followed, published in the journal Corrections (Magnuson et al., 2019), revealed that officers don’t feel they are on solid ground when they attempt the complex and difficult process of talking about assessment score information. It became clear that officers had received training to administer the RNA tool and use the results in the case plan, but they did not receive guidance on how to introduce the assessment and translate the tool results to individuals in a meaningful way. Example 1: Introducing the Assessment Tool It became clear that communicating the results of the tool was not the first stage of the problems staff were facing. In fact, introducing the tool to individuals, and explaining its purpose and function, emerged as central to initiating the RNA activity in the community supervision process. To address this very specific micro-process, researchers and staff collectively developed the following sample script for officers to use (Magnuson et al., 2019, p. 10): Today, we’re going to go over something called an RNA. The RNA is a tool we use to see how each person on probation is different. There are a lot of questions and some are a bit strange, so I appreciate your patience as we go through them. Once we complete the tool, we will get a printout that will help us identify areas we can work on together to help you be successful on and off probation. The collection of these areas will be the case plan and we will continue to work on this plan through your time on supervision. Example 2: Altering Language to Facilitate Information Communication Following the creation of this script and other scripts, the research team developed and delivered a training session to improve RNA tool use by officers and found increases in the officers’ knowledge of the tool’s domains and comfort in explaining them to individuals (Magnuson et al., 2019). This increase in knowledge and comfort was, in part, a result of accompanying one-page handouts providing officers scripts and new terms for explaining assessment domains. The culture of learning and leadership by key supervisors in the office also contributed to staff’s willingness to talk more candidly about their struggles with the tool, because it provided opportunities for directed coaching. Table 1 from the study shows some of this example language (Magnuson et al., 2019, p. 15): 36 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 2 RISK NEED ASSESSMENT Supervisors encouraged staff to adapt the scripts to their own voice, which would improve the understanding and delivery of the message. They discussed ways to adapt certain terms or phrases to respond to individual characteristics like bilingualism, literacy concerns, learning disorders, and cognitive capacity. Prior work in implementation science suggests focusing on a specific part of the process can better inform where fidelity is lost. Looking at the micro-processes within a practice informs solutions, as they did for our case study jurisdiction. Ultimately, feedback indicated that by focusing on this micro-process of introducing the assessment tool and explaining the previously hard-to-explain assessment domains, staff felt more prepared and capable of performing this core correctional practice effectively. The resulting knowledge reinforced the need to expand the resources and information provided to trainers and assessment developers to support staff’s effective use of tools, primarily through comprehension, believability, and acceptability (Magnuson et al. 2019; Proctor, 2011: Viglione et al. 2015). Conclusion Community corrections staff rely on RNA tools to provide information about individuals, yet we do not often provide this information to individuals. Concerns with fidelity of assessment implementation and effectiveness may reside in our ability (or inability) to communicate this important information to individuals in ways they understand, and free from bias or stigma. This reality puts the onus on researchers and assessment tool developers to study communication and incorporate it as an integral component of assessment trainings for practitioners. As we have outlined, there are many micro-processes that likely reflect standard or best practices as identified by communication scholars, but researchers have not examined these practices in legal systems settings. While we rely on public health models and communication science to consider the principles of effective assessment communication in community corrections, we encourage researchers and practitioners to engage with other disciplines. This cross-disciplinary approach will support the most comprehensive model of assessment communication, especially attending to issues related to bias, stigma, and equity. It is likely that without specific attention to assessment communication techniques we invite the potential for creating more harm to individuals and communities. Finally, we have an opportunity to engage in responsivity by knowing what individuals understand about their assessment results and how well they understand this information. At present there are no published studies describing how individuals understand what the assessment tells them, and ongoing research by the first author suggests they may not know much at all— primarily because officers don’t have the tools to share this information effectively or know what information is relevant to share, as presented in this article. What we do know from people impacted by the legal system is that the processes can definitely be more empathetic and less stigmatizing. It is our belief that attention to proper communication around a core EBP can support that effort, support staff doing their best work, and center individuals in their own community supervision journey. References Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk-need- responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, 6(1), 1-22. Bucklen, K. B., Duwe, G., & Taxman, F. S. (2021). Guidelines for Post-Sentencing Risk Assessment, National Institute of Justice. Chiricos, T., Barrick, K., Bales, W., & Bontrager, S. (2007). The labeling of convicted felons and its consequences for recidivism. Criminology, 45(3), 547-581. Desmarais, S. L., & Singh, J. P. (2013). Risk assessment instruments validated and implemented in correctional settings in the United States. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments. Freeman, K. R., Hu, C., and Janetta, J. (2021). Racial Equity and Criminal Justice Risk Assessment, Urban Institute Glik, D. C. (2007). Risk communication for public health emergencies. Annu. Rev. Public Health, 28, 33-54. Kennealy, P. J., Skeem, J. L., Manchak, S. M., & Eno Louden, J. (2012). Firm, fair, and caring officer-offender relationships protect against supervision failure. Law and human behavior, 36(6), 496. 37 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION RISK NEED ASSESSMENT Magnuson, S., Kras, K. R., Aleandro, H., Rudes, D. S., & Taxman, F. S. (2019). Using plan-do-study-act and participatory action research to improve use of risk needs assessments. Corrections, 5(1), 44-63. doi: 10.1080/23774657.2018.1555442 Miller, J., & Maloney, C. (2013). Practitioner compliance with risk/needs assessment tools: A theoretical and empirical assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(7), 716-736. Morash, M., Kashy, D. A., Smith, S. W., & Cobbina, J. E. (2016). The connection of probation/parole officer actions to women offenders’ recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(4), 506-524. Morash, M., Kashy, D. A., Smith, S. W., & Cobbina, J. E. (2018). Is the nature of communication relevant to the supportiveness of women’s relationships with probation and parole agents? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(6), 1629-1647. National Institute of Corrections (n.d.). Evidence-based Practices (EBP). Pretrial Justice Institute. (2020). Updated Position on Pretrial Risk Assessment Tools. Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., ... & Hensley, M. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and policy in mental health and mental health services research, 38(2), 65-76. Rudes, D.S., Viglione, J., & Meyer, K.S. (2016). Risky Needs: Risk Entangled Needs in Probation Supervision. Division of Corrections and Sentencing Handbook Series, Taylor & Francis/Routledge. Smith, P., Schweitzer, M., Labrecque, R. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2012). Improving probation officers’ supervision skills: an evaluation of the EPICS model. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35(2), 189-199. Steiner, B., Travis III, L. F., & Makarios, M. D. (2011). Understanding parole officers’ responses to sanctioning reform. Crime & Delinquency, 57(2), 222-246. Viglione, J., Rudes, D. S., & Taxman, F. S. (2015). Misalignment in supervision: Implementing risk/needs assessment instruments in probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(3), 263-285. Author Bios: Kimberly R. Kras, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice in the School of Public Affairs at San Diego State University. Dr. Kras’ research considers the lived experiences of people experiencing reentry from prison and their process toward desistance. She also examines how community corrections organizations and their staff employ evidence-based practices to support (or hinder) the reintegration of justice-involved people. Dr. Kras is currently Co-Editor for the APPA journal Perspectives. Shannon Magnuson, MA is an Associate with Justice System Partners (JSP) and a doctoral candidate at George Mason University. At JSP, she works on several grants investigating deflection, pretrial, custody, and community corrections strategies and interventions. Her interests focus on building content and tools for practitioners to improve their understanding and willingness to adopt and use evidence-based practices. Faye S. Taxman, PhD is a University Professor in the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University. Dr. Taxman is a health services criminologist who examines how organizational processes affect program and individual level outcomes. Her work focuses on effective supervision practices including implementation and uptake of innovations. She is currently the Co-Editor of Health & Justice and has published over 220 articles. She was past Editor of Perspectives. 38 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 2 RISK NEED ASSESSMENT RISK ASSESSMENTS AND RACIAL EQUITY Observations on BY JANIS BANE39 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION RISK NEED ASSESSMENT Introduction Led by the American Public Health Association (APHA), cities, counties and states across the country have made public declarations that “racism is a public health crisis” (APHA, 2020). Harris County, Texas made the declaration in July 2020 and recommended examining intercept points in systems to identify policies or procedures resulting in racial injustice and disparate impact on communities of color (Hansen, 2020). Two months prior to the declaration, the death of George Floyd at the hands of police during an arrest sparked protests and demands for racial justice in policing and awakened an awareness of structural racism in the criminal justice system. Regardless of whether the policies are related to over-policing, money bail, or mass incarceration, criminal justice reformers are acknowledging the impact of racism throughout the system (Davis, 2021). It makes no difference if the impact is intentional or unintentional, implicit bias or overt, the result is the same: people of color are being hurt. One intercept point in the system that deserves attention is the process of assessing risk to re-offend. For twenty-six of the past thirty-seven years, I held a position in a Texas Adult Probation, or Community Supervision and Corrections, Department. My first position, in 1978, was Probation Officer for a District Criminal Court in Harris County, Texas, and, I retired in 2015 as Chief Probation Officer in neighboring Galveston County. Within a few months of retirement, fate led me to a position as a justice related consultant for the City of Houston Health Department’s My Brother’s Keeper (MBK) initiative1. Throughout my career I have been a fervent advocate for individuals caught up in the criminal justice system who were not a threat to public safety. I supported prevention projects designed to interrupt the school to prison pipeline, to utilize brain science in the development of programs for young legal-system involved adults and to address the disproportionate impact of systems on minorities. Houston MBK gave me the opportunity to continue to advocate for projects designed to transform systems and undo biased practices and structures. Much of my time in recent months, has involved bringing attention to the potential negative impact risk assessment instruments (RAIs) have on the sentencing and supervision of people of color. RAIs have been used by the Adult Supervision field for decades to assist in decision making and case planning. During my early years as a Probation Officer, we used the Base Expectancy Scale, a list of approximately 10 items, on each new felony defendant assigned to probation supervision. For all practical purposes, the scale was completed to determine the number of contacts required for each person on a caseload, which ranged from twice monthly for a maximum score, to every three months for a minimum score. By the 1980’s, the National Institute of Corrections adopted the Wisconsin Risk/ Needs instrument as the gold standard recommended for adult probation classification systems (Henderson & Adams, 2010). The Wisconsin tool was validated based on the probability of successfully completing probation and was required by the State of Texas (Henderson & Adams, 2010). The Texas Risk Management System also included Strategies for Case Supervision (SCS) for probationers who scored High Risk or High Needs on the Wisconsin. The assessment assisted the probation officer in creating plans for intervention to address the identified areas and the SCS provided strategies for the supervision of the highest risk clients. The Wisconsin instrument was used in Texas from the 1980’s until January 2015 when the Texas Risk Assessment System (TRAS) became the required RAI. The TRAS was designed to accurately assign a level of risk to reoffend and to identify criminogenic needs contributing to the potential for re-offense (Lovins et al., 2017). At each step in the evolution of these assessments, the Criminal Justice System relies on a validated instrument that intends to provide scientific objectivity in predicting risk to reoffend and therefore reduce the occurrence of personal bias and discriminatory action. OBSERVATIONS ON RISK ASSESSMENTS AND RACIAL EQUITY 1. In 2014, President Obama launched My Brother’s Keeper, MBK, and challenged communities to make a commitment to provide opportunities for the success of young boys and men of color. The City of Huston accepted the challenge and began an ambitious undertaking to strategically identify targeted areas of the City where young boys and men of color were at high risk. The process included reviewing data on school attendance, suspensions and dropout rates, poverty levels, and juvenile justice referrals. The Houston Health Department is the backbone organization managing the Houston MBK initiative. The work includes a network of partners including school districts, non-profits, local programs working with youth and families, and criminal justice agencies. MBK supports programs that address identified milestones that contribute to successful outcomes for boys and young men of color.Next >