Predicting probation supervision violations.

Abstract

The task of risk assessment is a central feature of probation work and a core activity of probation officers. Risk assessment forms the basis for subsequent interventions and management of offenders so that the likelihood of reoffending is reduced. A primary difficulty for probation workers is the ability to predict the risk of probation violations which could facilitate prevention. The main objective of the present study was to investigate the value of the 61-item Dutch diagnostic and risk assessment tool Recidivism Assessment Scales (RISc) with respect to predicting probation supervision violations of male probationers (N ϭ 14,363). Because all RISc assessments included in the study were completed before the start of the supervision period, they could not have been influenced by behavior of the offenders or other circumstances during this period. It was found that the predictive accuracy of the RISc, with regard to supervision violation, was supported. All RISc subscales and the total score significantly predicted probation supervision violation. The AUC demonstrating the strength of the relationship of the RISc total score (AUC ϭ .70) is satisfactory. Logistic regression analyses resulted in a fitting model, demonstrating that a selection of only 17 items from the total of 61 RISc items was sufficient to predict probation violation while preserving predictive accuracy (AUC ϭ .73). For one of the possible cutoff sum scores used to select groups at high risk for probation violation, it was shown that is possible to double the percentage of correctly identified future violators when compared to the base rate of probation violation.

Substance Involvement and Probation Outcomes: Evidence From a Cohort Study

“…Individuals convicted of more serious crimes (Olson & Lurigio, 2000; Steinmetz & Henderson, 2016) and those with prior criminal justice contact are at higher risk for probation revocation generally (Olson & Lurigio, 2000) and for new crimes (Olson et al, 2003), and are less likely to successfully complete probation (Morgan, 1995). Similarly, probation revocation is more likely among individuals identified as having greater criminogenic risks and needs (Steinmetz & Henderson, 2016), including revocation due to technical violations (Hildebrand, Hol, & Bosker, 2013).…”

Finding the right focus: Improving the link between risk/needs assessment and case management in probation.

“…Dropout: Early dropout from interventions or supervision is related to recidivism, and many risk factors for recidivism are also risk factors for non-compliance (Hildebrand, Hol, & Bosker, 2013;Olver, Stockdale, & Wormith, 2011;Ugwudike, 2010). A case management plan that is aimed at the reduction of risk factors for recidivism could also have a positive effect on dropout.…”

The myriad of challenges with correctional change: From goals to culture

“…Despite its relative size and accompanying importance, studies of US corrections, probation and parole systems, organizations and officers focus on successful outcomes (e.g. completion of probation/parole) (Hildebrand et al, 2012; Sims and Jones, 1997; Wodahl et al, 2011), recidivism (Bourgon and Gutierrez, 2012; Green and Winick, 2010; Nagin et al, 2009; Spohn and Holleran, 2002) and time to program completion and/or relapse (Deschenes et al, 1995; Langan, 1994, 1996; Petersilia and Turner, 1993; Taxman and Byrne, 1994). This research tends to neglect correctional and probation/parole officers (POs) charged with supervising, managing and brokering services for offenders (Bonta et al, 2008; Clear et al, 1992; Taxman, 2002; Thanner and Taxman, 2003).…”