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

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 3 The Key Decision Points 1. Initial Parole Eligibility Hearing a. Parole b. 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 Revocation a. Detain or Release b. Period of Incarceration

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 4 Sources Statistics and Trends -- Bureau of Justice Statistics, Research -- National Institute of Justice, Technical Assistance – National Institute of Corrections Program Money and TA – Bureau of Justice Assistance,

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 5 Adult Correctional Populations Population % Change Probation1,118,0974,162,536272% Jail163,994747,529359% Prison329,8211,446,269339% Parole220,438784,408256% Total Adults Under Corrections1,832,3507,056,000285% Adult Population162.8 Million214.8 million32% % of Adults Under Corrections1.1%3.3%188%

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 6 Past and Current Projected Prisoner Population

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 7 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

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 8 Variance in the Use of Imprisonment

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 9 Variance in the Use of Probation and Parole

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 10 Variance in Life Chances of Being Imprisoned in USA Total1.9%5.2%6.6% Males White3.6%9.1%11.3% Black13.4%29.4%32.2% Hispanic4.0%16.3%17.2% Females0.3%1.1%1.8% White0.2%0.5%0.9% Black1.1%3.6%5.6% Hispanic0.4%1.5%2.2%

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 11 Variance in Key Criminal Justice Decision Points Racial Group PopulationOffenderArrestedConvictedPrison/ Jail White75%64%69%54%39% Black12%25%29%44%47%

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 12 Variance in Average Sentences and Time Served By Race – 2002 Prison Releases Offense Group WhiteBlack SentenceTime Served SentenceTime Served All Offenses63 mos27 mos69 mos32 mos Violent85 mos45 mos95 mos53 mos Property56 mos22 mos58 mos25 mos Drug61 mos19 mos64 mos23 mos Public Order44 mos18 mos45 mos21 mos Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Correctional Reporting Program 2002

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 13 IndicatorWhiteBlack Married57%35% Less than High School Degree11%21% Unemployed5%11% Under $25,000 Income26%39% Below Poverty Level8%23% Under 18 years10%30% Central City Residence21%52% Residence Ownership83%53% Variance in Crime Risk Factors by Race

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 14 7,000.0 C rime and W elfare , , , , , , Crime Rate 16, , , , , , , , Welfare Recipients Year

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 15 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)

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 16 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)

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 17 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

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 18 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

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 19 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

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 20 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

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 21 Percent of Arrests Attributed to Released Prisoners Type of arrests N% Total Arrests in Seven States ,994, % Arrests of Prison Releases ,5345% Percent that are Violent Crimes 36,0001%

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas and 1994 Recidivism Rates Recidivism Measures 1983 Prison Releases 1994 Prison Releases Re-Arrested63%69% Re-Convicted47% Re- Imprisoned 41%40% – 52%

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 23 Method of Release and Re-Arrest Re-Arrest Rate Unconditional Releases Mandatory Releases Discretionary Paroles Unadjusted62%61%54% Adjusted61% 57%

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 24 Success on Parole and Probation – ProbationParole Successful Completions %45% %43% %47% Reason for Failures Re-incarcerated New Conviction/Sentence5%11% Revocation7%26% Other4%0% Absconded4%9% Other22%6%

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 25 Length and Stay and Recidivism - Louisiana Length of Stay in PrisonReleases%Return to Prison Return With New Charge Up to 6 months2, %36.1%20.2% 6 to 12 months2, %36.7%17.9% 12 to 24 months3, %39.0%14.8% 24 to 48 months2, %39.5%16.6% 48 months or more1,0627.5%32.4%13.7%

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 26 The Impact of Treatment by Risk Level Level of Treatment StudyRisk LevelMinimalIntensive O’Donnell et al (1971) Low16%22% High78%56% Baird et al (1979)Low3%10% High37%18% Andrews & Kiessling (1980) Low12%17% High58%31% Bonta et al (2000)Low15%32% High51%32% D.A. Andrews and James Bonta The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (3 rd ed.). Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing. p. 260.

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 27 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

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 28 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

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 29 Vermont Risk Level Results RiskN%Recidivism Rate Low15123%26% Moderate29345%49% High20031%67%

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 30 Kentucky Parole Board Risk Assessment Decision by Risk

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas Kentucky Parole Board Risk Assessment Decision by Offense Severity

32 Texas Expected Levels of Parole Grants Offense Severity Class RISK LEVEL Highest (12+) High (9-11) Moderate (6-8) Low (0-5) Highest 0-5% % % % 3 High 5-15% % % % 4 Moderate 5-15% % % % 6 Low 16-25% % % % 7

33 Texas FY 06 Actual Versus Expected Grant Rates GuidelineExpectedActual 10%-5%3% 26%-15%13% 316%-25%17% 426%-35%20% 536%-50%33% 651%-75%41% 776%-100%48%

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 34 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

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 35 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

JFA Associates/The Institute, Washington, DC/Austin, Texas 36 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 crimes 4.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